K'^^k':/: 


\^y^^'^i^} 


DivisioQ         [^ 


JSe*.  tion 


THE  RELIGION  OF   ISRAEL 


THE    RELIGION    OF 
ISRAEL 


V 


^1  OF  F/?/^ 
NOV  -c' Li  1910 


BY 


/";'. 


ALFRED    LOISY 

PROFESSOR    OF    THE    HISTORY    OF    RELIGIONS 
AT    THE    COLLEGE    DE    FRANCE 


TRANSLATED   BY   ARTHUR   GALTON 


G.    P.    PUTNAM'S    SONS 

NEW  YORK 

1910 


[All  rights  resei^ed.] 


TRANSLATOR'S   PROLOGUE 

AN  attempt  has  been  made  in  the  following 
pages  to  transfer  the  thought  of  M. 
Loisy's  La  Religion  d' Israel  into  English  ;  so  that 
its  fine  scholarship  may  be  available  to  readers 
who  are  not  on  easy  terms  with  the  original. 
French  prose  is  the  most  perfect  instrument  of 
thought  and  speech  that  the  modern  world  has 
given  us.  Indeed,  it  might  be  argued  that  it  is 
more  perfect,  in  some  of  its  qualities,  than  even 
Greek  and  Roman.  Though  it  may  not  have  all 
the  force,  weight,  and  brevity  of  the  latter,  nor 
the  opulent  variety  and  the  subtil  distinctions 
of  the  former,  yet  in  lucidity,  precision,  irony, 
and  above  all  in  lightness  of  touch,  it  yields  to 
neither.  In  these  respects,  it  is  far  superior  to 
all  other  existing  European  languages,  and  even 
to  those  curious  variations  in  one  of  them  which 
are  being  manufactured  so  capriciously  in  Aus- 
tralasia, South  i^frica,  and  North  America. 

In  that  great  age  "  when  letters  were  polite," 
French  was  the  language  of  ambassadors  and 


vi  Translator's  Prologue 

the  medium  of  international  courtesy  ;  and  it 
is  still  the  language  in  which  urbanity  prevails, 
not  merely  as  a  tradition,  but  as  a  living 
practice.  Therefore  it  is  most  desirable  that 
theological  discussions  should  be  carried  on, 
whenever  it  is  possible,  in  French ;  so  that  the 
language  itself  may  help  to  assuage  the  pro- 
verbial heat  of  religious  controversy.  Most 
Englishmen  are  said  to  "  write  in  a  rage."  Our 
divines  and  politicians  are,  indeed,  often  angry 
enough ;  but  they  are  generally  even  more 
culpable  through  being  dull  and  heavy-handed. 
To  these  faults  the  Germans  usually  add  an 
obscurity,  an  obtuse  rudeness,  and  a  laughable 
want  of  tact,  which  are  all  their  own.  Against 
these  defects,  the  urbanity,  the  clearness,  the 
practical  common-sense,  and  the  lightness  of 
French  are  the  best  preventives  ;  and  all  these 
good  qualities  are  met  with  invariably  through- 
out M.  Loisy's  writings. 

As  a  prose  writer,  so  far  as  an  Englishman 
is  able  to  judge,  M.  Loisy  carries  on  that  high 
tradition  which  through  Montaigne,  Pascal, 
Fenelon,  Voltaire,  Talleyrand,  Merimee,  Renan 
has  come  down,  unbroken  and  unharmed,  into 
our  own  time,  and  is  being  worthily  continued 
by  many  learned  and  charming  authors.  It  is 
not  only  impossible  to  estimate  the  living,  but 
it  is  invidious  to  enumerate  and  class  them;  still 


Translator's  Prologue  vii 

it  would  be  allowed,  perhaps  on  all  hands,  that 
M.  Anatole  France  personifies  best  in  himself, 
and  exhibits  most  happily  in  his  art,  those  finer 
qualities  of  French  prose  to  which  we  have 
alluded,  as  they  are  illustrated  by  the  great 
masters  whom  we  have  named.  As  an  example 
of  the  more  solid  and  monumental  virtues  of 
French  writing,  we  should  point  to  Monseigneur 
Duchesne,  now  deservedly  a  member  of  the 
Academie  Franc^aise  in  succession  to  the  witty 
Cardinal  Mathieu.  M.  Duchesne's  great  book 
has  been  described  felicitously  as  "  Une  histoire 
ancienne  de  I'Eglise  racontee  avec  toute  la 
science  du  vingtieme  siecle  dans  la  langue  du 
dix-huitieme  et  a  la  barbe  des  theologiens  du 
seizieme."  This  epigram,  which  might  also  be 
applied  to  M.  Loisy,  we  owe  to  the  Abbe  Houtin, 
himself  the  master  of  a  biting  and  witty  prose, 
in  which  he  has  exposed  many  antique  frauds 
and  immortalized  innumerable  dunces.  It  will 
be  seen  from  these  examples  that  the  Church, 
at  any  rate  in  France,  has  been  able  so  far 
to  maintain  her  long  connexion  with  humane 
letters,  in  which  she  can  boast  of  so  many 
illustrious  names.  Whether  that  tradition  will 
survive  the  dissolution  of  the  Concordat  is 
perhaps  as  dubious  as  the  connexion  of  some 
of  these  writers  with  the  Church.  However 
this  may  be,  M.  Duchesne  has  not  succeeded  to 


viii        Translator's   Prologue 

Cardinal  Mathieu's  vacant  Hat,  nor  is  he  likely 
to  under  the  present  Pontificate,  which  is 
mortally  afraid  of  wit  and  scholarship,  especially 
in  historians. 

It  may  be  questioned,  also,  whether  any  of 
our  own  existing  divines  and  historians  are 
capable  of  writing,  like  Monseigneur  Duchesne, 
"  dans  la  langue  du  dix-huitieme  siecle,"  or 
whether  they  would  understand  precisely  what 
is  meant.  If  the  great  age  of  prose,  or  perhaps 
rather  if  its  traditions,  be  still  surviving  and 
even  flourishing  in  France  it  is  because,  for  one 
reason,  as  Renan  says  so  finely,  "la  langue 
fran^aise  est  puritaine";  it  is  exclusive,  reverent, 
scrupulous ;  and  its  best  writers  still  exercise 
themselves  deliberately  in  those  great  traditions 
which,  as  Pope  warns  us,  and  as  our  current 
literature  shows,  can  not  ever  be  neglected  with 
impunity.  Through  these  methods  France  can 
still  produce  authors  who,  without  pedantry, 
artificiality,  or  stiffness,  are  able  to  give  us  so 
much  of  the  form  and  spirit  which  are  inherited 
from  the  delightful  and  cultured  age  of  Louis 
XV.  In  English,  the  accomplished  negligence 
of  Goldsmith  comes  nearest  to  that  fascinating 
and  artless  manner;  and  Goldsmith  himself 
would  have  been  the  ideal  translator  of  M. 
Loisy. 

For  all  these  reasons,  it  has  been  a  work  of 


Translator's  Prologue  ix 

unusual  difficulty  to  turn  M.  Loisy  into  English. 
All  translation  is  at  best  elusive  and  disappoint- 
ing. It  resolves  itself  ultimately  into  an  adoption 
of  what  seems  least  unsatisfactory,  and  Proteus 
himself  is  not  more  volatile  than  language. 
To  transfer  thought  from  one  language  into 
another  is  the  best  way  to  realize  Homer's 
deeper  meaning  when  he  says  that  words  are 
winged.  The  present  translator  knows  as  well 
as  most  of  his  readers  and  possible  critics  that 
any  given  sentence  may  be  turned  in  at  least 
half  a  dozen  ways ;  and  if  he  has  had  to  choose 
one  of  them  finally,  it  has  never  been  without 
recognising  that  there  are  several  others  equally 
accurate  and  sound.  But,  since  this  translation 
has  had  the  benefit  of  M.  Loisy's  friendly  and 
very  careful  supervision,  it  may  be  claimed  that 
he,  at  any  rate,  finds  no  positive  error  of  detail 
in  the  attempt  to  convey  his  meaning ;  and  he 
has  been  good  enough  to  add  that,  as  a  com- 
position, it  seems  to  him  readable,  flowing,  and 
successful.  If  that  be  the  general  verdict,  the 
translator  may  be  fairly  satisfied.  He  has 
aimed,  so  far  as  possible,  at  keeping  to  the 
form  of  M.  Loisy's  sentences,  and  to  the  order 
of  his  words  ;  but  French  has  more  inflections 
than  English,  and  they  enable  it  to  be  gram- 
matical and  clear  in  many  cases  where  our 
uninflected   language   would   be   confused.      In 


X  Translator's  Prologue 

some  few  passages,  therefore,  it  has  been 
thought  advisable  to  break  up  and  shorten  M. 
Loisy's  sentences,  or  to  transpose  the  order  of 
his  clauses,  though  never  it  is  hoped  with  any 
alteration  of  the  meaning. 

It  may  be  remembered  that  Gibbon  wrote 
much  and  easily  in  French.  Indeed,  he  wavered 
long  between  composing  his  "  Decline  and  Fall " 
in  that  language  or  in  English.  Those  who 
have  studied  Gibbon's  method  will  have  seen 
how  forcibly  and  concisely  he  makes  a  story  tell 
itself  by  his  moving  and  spirited  use  of  verbs, 
and  how  his  careful  choice  of  epithets  has  often 
saved  him  a  long  paragraph  of  description  in  our 
more  slovenly  and  effusive  modern  style.  By 
these  means  he  was  able  to  convey,  with  singular 
minuteness,  the  history  of  the  whole  civilized 
world  for  nearly  fifteen  centuries,  in  rather  less 
space  than  is  occupied  by  Froude  or  Gardiner 
for  about  sixty  years  of  British  history  alone. 
By  similar  means,  M.  Loisy  is  able  to  tell  his 
long  story  in  a  more  condensed  way  than  most 
English  writers  could  have  used.  Because  he  is 
short,  it  must  not  be  inferred  that  he  is  slight 
or  superficial,  for  the  precise  contrary  is  true ; 
and  the  translation,  probably,  is  very  near  to 
the  original  in  length. 

M.  Loisy  has  christened  his  book  The  Religion 
of  Israel,     So  refined  and  scrupulous  a  scholar 


Translator's  Prologue  xi 

does  not  use  words  carelessly ;  and  his  volume 
neither  is,  nor  professes  to  be,  an  History  of 
the  Jews,  in  the  ordinary  meaning  of  that  term. 
There  are  many  such  histories,  more  or  less 
apocryphal,  and  there  is  no  need  for  another 
of  the  same  kind  in  English.  M.  Loisy  has 
given  us  something  much  better.  He  explains 
how  the  religion  of  Israel  has  grown  up  ;  analys- 
ing it,  so  far  as  that  is  possible,  into  its  earliest 
and  simplest  elements ;  marking  its  probable 
origins,  and  setting  it  in  that  larger  scheme  of 
comparative  religion,  which  is  one  of  the  most 
important  and  fruitful  branches  of  our  modern 
historical  science.  He  thus  traces  Judaism  to 
its  beginnings,  follows  out  its  growth,  and 
shows  its  extraordinary  developments.  Logical 
and  entirely  natural  as  the  whole  process  has 
been,  as  one  looks  back,  using  the  proper  clue, 
it  must  be  admitted  that  the  religion  of  Israel 
contains  a  great  deal  which  would  be  inexplic- 
able and  surprising  to  its  primitive  initiators, 
and  much  also  that  is  hardly  understood  as 
yet  by  its  existing  adherents,  whether  Mosaists 
or  Christians. 

The  chief  clue  which  M.  Loisy  possesses  is  his 
oriental  scholarship,  which  enables  him  to  judge 
the  Hebrew  records  with  first-hand  authority, 
and  with  unrivalled  knowledge.  He  gives  to 
his    readers,   in    the    clearest    form    and    in   a 


xii  Translator's  Prologue 

wonderfully  short  space,  the  latest  and  soundest 
results  of  the  higher  criticism  with  regard  to 
the  age,  authorship  and  composition  of  the  canoni- 
cal and  the  deutero-canonical  books.  These 
pages  alone  would  make  his  volume  of  the 
utmost  interest  and  value  to  many  English 
readers.  To  some,  perhaps,  who  are  not  versed 
in  scriptural  studies,  M.  Loisy  may  appear  arbi- 
trary or  revolutionary  ;  but  any  one  who  is 
familiar  with  the  vast  literature  of  the  Biblical 
problem  will  be  impressed  more  by  his  sobriety 
and  caution.  In  addition  to  his  profound  scholar- 
ship and  his  practical  common-sense,  M.  Loisy 
has  a  way  of  looking  all  round  a  question,  and 
seeing  it  in  every  point  of  view,  before  he 
pronounces  judgment.  This  makes  him  a  safe 
teacher  and  a  very  awkward  antagonist.  Even 
Professor  Harnack,  in  spite  of  all  his  learning, 
was  shown  that  he  had  missed  the  essential 
point  of  Christ's  teaching  when  the  arguments 
of  L'J^vangile  et  E^Jglise  were  applied  to  "  What 
is  Christianity  ?  " 

The  question  of  what  Christianity  really  is 
has  come  to  be  asked  in  our  days  with  more 
and  more  persistence ;  and  the  answer  is  being 
given  with  an  always  fuller  knowledge,  and  a 
more  rigorous  application  of  scientific  methods. 
M.  Loisy  has  done  more  than  almost  any  other 
single   writer   to    give    an    answer   which   may 


Translator's  Prologue        xiii 

satisfy  the  intelligence  and  scholarship  of  this 
twentieth   century.     In  his    two    great   works, 
Le  Quatrieme  ijvangile  and  Les  J^vangiles  Synop- 
tiques,   he   has    explored   the    mysteries    which 
have  enveloped  the   composition   and   spirit   of 
the   Gospels.     In   his  Religion  d'Israel,   he   has 
examined   and  explained   the   foundation  upon 
which  the  whole  Christian  super-structure  has 
been  raised.     Whether  it  be  acceptable  or  not, 
the  foundations  of  both  Judaism   and   Christi- 
anity have  been  altered  by  modern  investigators. 
The  old   notions  about   the  origin,  authorship, 
date,  order,  and  contents  of  the  Hebrew  records 
can  not  be  maintained  by  any  competent  scholar. 
The  general  results  of  criticism   must  be,  and 
are,  accepted,  whatever  controversies  and   un- 
solved  problems  may  remain   about   secondary 
details  ;  and  archaeology  bears  out   the  general 
results  of  grammatical  and  historical  criticism. 
The  old  view,  besides  being  irreconcilable  with 
our  present  knowledge  of  the  universe  and  of 
its  laws,  presented  a  general  scheme  of  Jewish 
history  which  swarmed  with  contradictions,  im- 
probabilities, difficulties,  absurdities,  even  impos- 
sibilities.    As  we  have   now  come  to   read  the 
books,  the  whole  history  is  made  intelligible  and 
coherent;  and  the  religion,  which  is  presented 
through  the  history,  becomes  more  interesting 
than    ever    as    a    factor    in    the    education    of 


XIV         Translator's   Prologue 

mankind,     and     as     an     illustration     of     the 
process. 

M.  Loisy  ends  his  story,  significantly,  with  a 
chapter  on  messianisni,  into  which  the  Jewish 
history  belonging  to  the  old  world  disappeared, 
and  out  of  which  the  Christianity  of  the  new 
world  has  emerged.  The  problem  which,  above 
all  others,  engages  New  Testament  scholars  at 
present  is  the  true  relation  of  Christ  to  the 
messianic  kingdom,  and  his  attitude  towards 
the  person  and  prospects  of  the  messiah.  With 
this  problem  is  bound  up  the  secret  of  his  mind, 
and  the  whole  question  of  Christian  ethics. 
It  used  to  be  thought,  especially  by  Anglican 
theologians,  that  in  matters  of  criticism  the 
New  Testament  could  be  separated  from  the 
Old,  and  that  scholarship  could  be  pulled  up 
short  at  the  end  of  Malachi.  We  have  come  to 
see,  however,  that  the  whole  of  Judaism  is  one 
long,  gradual,  and  natural  evolution,  from  the 
tribal  God  of  nomad  Semites  in  the  desert  to 
the  universal  God  of  the  later  prophets, 
who  was  modified  again  by  Platonic  and 
Alexandrian  metaphysics.  Whatever  else 
Christianity  may  be,  it  is  an  Hellenistic  struc- 
ture built  on  a  Jewish  foundation,  which  was 
itself  considerably  Hellenised  long  before  the 
Christian  missionaries  appeared.  Criticism, 
then,    has    not    stopped,   and    cannot    stop,    at 


Translator's  Prologue  xv 

Judaism  and  the  Old  Testament;  but  it  is  far 
more  constructive  than  destructive,  and  one  of 
its  positive  results  may  be  to  reconcile  Judaism 
to  Christianity,  when  each  of  them  is  under- 
stood better.  And  a  farther  result  may  even 
be  to  reconcile  the  warring  Christian  sects, 
when  scholarship  dissolves,  as  it  will  inevit- 
ably, the  ecclesiastical  and  theological  barriers 
between  them.  Though  M.  Loisy  ends  this 
volume  with  messianism,  as  it  was  taken  over 
and  adapted  by  the  earliest  Christian  preachers, 
he  has  in  the  pi^olegomena  to  his  Synoptic  Gospels 
sketched  a  most  illuminative  and  fascinating 
"  Life  of  Christ."  This  is  now  being  disengaged 
from  its  rather  formidable  setting,  and  with 
some  necessary  alterations  will  form  a  separate 
work,  which  may  probably  be  published  soon. 
And  all  readers  of  this  Religion  of  Israel  will 
desire,  it  may  be  hoped,  to  have  it  presented  to 
them  in  due  time  in  English. 

With  regard  to  a  few  details  in  the  present 
translation,  it  should  be  pointed  out  that  all  the 
renderings  of  Scripture  are  from  one  or  other 
of  our  current  English  versions,  the  Authorized 
or  the  Revised,  except  in  some  few  cases  where 
M.  Loisy's  translation  has  differed  from  them 
substantially,  and  so  is  presumably  nearer  to  the 
original.  In  the  usage  of  proper  names,  our 
current  English  spelling   has  been  followed  in- 


xvi         Translator's  Prologue 

variably.  Noah,  for  instance,  has  become  an 
English  word ;  Noe  has  not,  and  probably  never 
will,  nor  has  Moyses  or  Cham ;  and  so  of  many 
other  names  with  which  the  Authorized  Bible 
has  familiarized  our  Protestant  Church  and 
Nation,  until  they  have  become  household  words. 
In  many  ways  it  is  a  pity  that  these  familiar 
names  are  not  employed  uniformly  throughout 
the  whole  Bible,  instead  of  the  Greek  forms 
under  which  some  of  them  are  disguised  in  the 
New  Testament.  In  Egyptian  and  in  all  other 
non-scriptural  names,  M.  Loisy's  gallicised  form 
of  spelling  has  been  retained.  All  educated 
persons  unite  in  rejecting  the  incorrect  Jehovah, 
so  dear  to  lurid  theologians ;  but,  for  very 
obvious  reasons,  the  form  Yahweh  has  been 
substituted  for  M.  Loisy's  Jahve,  though  the 
word  Jahvism  remains  unaltered.  The  Bible 
and  the  Prayer  Book  have  also  been  followed 
in  their  consistent  rejection  of  capital  letters 
for  pronouns  and  adjectives  which  refer  to  the 
Divinity.  It  is  significant  that  their  sober 
usage  is  ignored  so  flagrantly  in  modern 
practice,  especially  in  clerical  publications. 
An  English  Bible  is  very  much  to  be  desired 
in  which  the  names  Yahweh  and  Elohim 
are  restored  frankly  to  all  the  passages  where 
they  once  existed  in  the  original.  This  would 
add    enormously    to    an    honest  and  historical 


Translator's  Prologue        xvii 

understanding  of  the  text ;  and  these  benefits 
would  be  more  than  doubled  if  the  composite 
nature,  the  various  authorship,  and  the  probable 
date  of  the  several  writings  could  be  indicated 
by  some  clear  and  simple  method  of  typo- 
graphy. 

When  all  is  said  and  done,  it  still  remains 
true  that  man  cannot  live  by  bread  alone.  The 
letter  cannot  satisfy  him,  and  he  requires  the 
spirit.  He  must  have  an  ideal ;  but  the  ideal  is  j 
not  lowered,  it  is  heightened,  by  a  proper  under- ' 
standing  of  the  religion  and  history  of  Israel ; 
for  no  other  people  has  lived  so  completely  in 
and  by  its  ideals,  or  has  evolved  so  splendid  and 
stirring  a  romance  out  of  its  history.  The  flame 
of  its  poets  and  prophets  almost  blinds  us  to 
their  intellectual  poverty. 

The  ideal,  in  any  case,  is  not  to  be  found  in 
a  discredited  and  incredible  theology,  sup- 
ported by  the  brute  force  of  an  oppressive  and 
obscurantist  clergy.  M.  Loisy  has  borne  a 
foremost  and  distinguished  part  in  that  great 
struggle  which  at  present  is  dissolving,  and 
in  the  future  may  shatter,  the  largest  of  the 
Christian  organizations.  Fortune  has  been  kind 
by  liberating  him,  in  spite  of  himself,  from 
clerical  fetters  upon  his  thoughts  and  words ; 
and  still  more  by  enabling  him  to  speak  freely, 
not  only  with  all  his  own  authority  as  one  of  the 

1* 


xviii      Translator's  Prologue 

best  living  orientalists,  but  with  all  the  distinc- 
tion and  weight  conferred  by  the  Professorial 
Chair  of  the  History  of  Religions  in  the  College 
de  France, 


PREFACE 

THE  modest  work  of  which  a  second  edition 
is  now  offered  to  the  public  was  written 
for  the  Revue  du  Clerge  frangais.  One  part 
only,  which  made  a  first  article,  was  able  to 
appear  in  that  periodical,  in  October,  1900 ; 
two  other  articles  would  have  followed  it. 
The  whole,  with  a  preface  in  which  an  endea- 
vour was  made  to  harmonise  the  conclusions 
of  criticism  with  the  principles  of  Catholic 
theology,  was  issued  as  a  pamphlet  in  the 
early  months  of  1901.  The  edition  of  three 
hundred  copies,  which  was  sold  out  immedi- 
ately, was  not  for  public  circulation. 

A  new  edition  seemed  to  be  called  for, 
because  our  literature  is  not  well  supplied 
with  specialist  works  on  this  subject ;  and  the 
most  undeniable  results  of  criticism  are 
scarcely  popularised  in  our  country.  But,  on 
one  hand,  it  was  thought  well  to  abridge 
certain  arguments  of  an  apologetic  nature, 
which  were  appropriate  in  a  work  meant  to 
acquaint  the  Catholic  clergy   with  the   assured 


XX  Preface 

or  the   probable   conclusions    of    Biblical    criti- 
cism    and     at     the     same     time     to     reconcile 
them   with    the    official    teaching    of    Catholi- 
cism.    La    Religion   d'Israel    Tvas    the    continu- 
ation   of     some    articles     about    religion     and 
revelation  which  were    published  in   the    same 
review ;   and    it    would    have     served     as     the 
introduction    to    some    others,  on    the    origins 
and   development    of    Christianity,   which   had 
appeared,    in   a    different  form,    in    the   works 
entitled  L'Evangile  et  UEglise  and  Autour  dun 
Petit  Livre.     The   anxiety  of  adapting  Catholi- 
cism  to    the    modern   spirit   being    henceforth 
indifferent     to    the    author,    he    now   abstains 
naturally  from   arguments    which   were  meant 
to     interpret    the      teachings     of    the    Church 
according  to  the  demands  of  modern  thought. 
On   the   other    hand,   it   was   thought    indis- 
pensable  to   give  more  space   to   the  historical 
exposition.     The  religion  of  Israel  is  the  source 
from  which  the  Christian  religion  has   flowed. 
The    two    are    only    one    religion    among    the 
others    which   have    divided,    and    still   divide, 
mankind.     It   is  no  longer  the  business  of   the 
historian   to   prove   that    this  religion   is   true, 
and  all  the  others  false  ;  but  his  function  is,  so 
far    as     possible,     to    determine     its    place     in 
history,     and    its    relation    to    worships   which 
have  preceded   it,  or   with   which   it   has   been 


Pref^ 


ace  XXI 


in  contact  during  the  centuries  of  its  exist- 
ence. On  these  conditions  only  can  a  study 
of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  past  be  described 
as  scientific.  But  when  the  absolute  and  ab- 
stract point  of  view  of  the  traditional  theology 
is  given  up,  other  questions  keep  multiplying  ; 
and  it  may  be  said  that  every  advance  in  the 
knowledge  of  religious  antiquity  raises  new  ones. 
First  comes  the  criticism  of  the  sources. 
With  the  old  theory  of  an  inspired  book,  the 
historian's  task  was  exceedingly  simple :  or 
rather,  no  history  was  possible.  The  sacred 
books  of  the  Jews,  dictated  by  God  from 
cover  to  cover,  became  the  Old  Testament  of 
the  Christian  Church,  and  could  not  but  be  free 
from  all  error  and  filled  with  all  truth.  For 
long,  their  evidence  was  accepted  without 
examination  ;  men  were  blind  to  their  contra- 
dictions, their  improbabilities,  to  the  mythical 
or  legendary  character  of  innumerable  stories. 
Five  or  six  thousand  years  ago,  God  had 
created  the  world  in  six  days,  and  rested  on 
the  seventh ;  having  made  the  first  man  and 
woman  with  his  own  hands,  he  was  displeased 
with  their  posterity,  and  had  drowned  the 
whole  of  it  in  a  universal  flood,  saving 
only  the  family  of  Noah,  with  specimens 
of  every  kind  of  animal,  in  a  large  ark. 
After  having   led   Abraham  from  the    middle 


xxii  Preface 

of  Chaldsea  into  Canaan,  and  eaten  with  him 
under  the  oak  of  Mamre,  he  was  interested 
in  his  descendants  :  he  rescued  the  Hebrews 
from  Egypt,  and  made  them  cross  the  Red 
Sea  dry-shod,  and  fed  them  in  the  wilder- 
ness during  forty  years  with  a  manna  which 
tumbled  from  the  sky  every  morning ;  he  was 
even  able,  afterwards,  to  make  Balaam's 
donkey  speak,  to  stop  the  sun  at  the  com- 
mand of  Joshua,  to  keep  Jonah  alive  three 
days  and  nights  in  the  stomach  of  a  great 
fish,  where  the  prophet  composed  a  hymn  in 
his  praise ;  he  preserved  the  three  young  men 
in  the  fiery  furnace  which  had  been  lit  by  Nebu- 
chadnezzar; he  carried  Habakkuk  by  the  hair 
of  his  head  from  Judaea  to  Babylon,  with  food 
ready  cooked  for  Daniel  in  his  lions'  den.  .  .  . 

We  have  been  driven  to  see  that  the  Bible 
is  not  a  book  which  was  composed  in  a 
superhuman  way,  but  a  collection,  of  very 
unequal  values,  though  always  dominated  by 
the  same  religious  spirit,  in  which,  for  the 
advantage  of  a  creed,  historical  facts,  legendary 
traditions,  absolute  myths,  have  all  been 
utilised ;  and  they  can  be  distinguished 
from  one  another,  as  in  the  case  of  any  other 
ancient  book,  by  the  methods  which  are  usually 
applied  to  the  criticism  of  texts.  The  greater 
part  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  cannot 


Preface 


XXlll 


be  accepted  as  homogeneous  writings ;  nor,  on 
the  whole,  as  contemporary  evidence  for  the 
facts  which  they  narrate.  Tradition  has  been 
much  too  facile  in  settling  the  authorship  of 
books  :  giving  the  Pentateuch  to  Moses,  because 
the  Law,  which  was  said  to  have  been  pro- 
mulgated by  the  old  prophet  in  the  name  of 
God,  was  contained  in  it ;  the  Book  of  Joshua 
to  the  hero  whose  actions  it  describes ;  Judges 
to  Samuel,  because  he  was  the  last  personage 
who  bore  that  title. 

It  has  been  established  without  difficulty 
that  the  so-called  historical  books  were  origi- 
nally anonymous  compilations,  based  on  older 
sources,  of  exceedingly  various  origin  and 
worth,  which  have  been  very  freely  combined 
and  arranged  by  the  Israelitish  hagiographers : 
that  a  third  only  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah  was 
written  by  that  prophet ;  that  Daniel  is  an  apoc- 
ryphal writing,  composed  during  the  persecution 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes ;  that  the  so-called 
Psalms  of  David  were  most  of  them,  if  not  all, 
written  after  the  captivity  in  Babylon ;  that 
the  writings  issued  under  the  patronage  of 
Solomon  are  of  the  same  epoch  as  the  Psalms ; 
and  so  of  all  the  rest. 

This  upheaval  of  the  received  notions  about 
the  origin  of  the  books  as  a  natural  conse- 
quence revolutionised   our  way  of  understand- 


xxiv  Preface 

ing  the  history  and  religion  of  Israel.  Instead 
of  beginning  with  clear  and  definite  informa- 
tion about  the  earliest  ages  of  mankind  and 
the  birth  of  the  Hebrew  people,  the  sacred 
history  gives  us  consistent  facts  only  after 
the  establishment  of  monarchy  in  Israel. 
Moses,  Deborah,  Gideon,  even  Samuel,  can 
hardly  be  disengaged  from  legend.  Abraham, 
Isaac,  Jacob  and  his  families,  and  still  more 
Adam  and  Eve,  Cain  and  Abel,  Noah  and  his 
children,  the  Creation  and  the  Flood,  the  Tower 
of  Babel,  all  slip  back  into  mythology.  The  Law, 
proclaimed  by  God  from  Sinai  or  in  the  plains 
of  Moab,  was  all  elaborated  in  the  last  years  of 
the  monarchy,  or  after  the  captivity :  the  Mosaic 
revelation  was  nothing  more  than  a  theological 
romance.  Instead  of  the  prophets  having  come 
after  the  Law,  it  was  they  who  inspired  it. 

The  religion  of  Israel  survived  nevertheless 
as  a  great  and  an  astonishing  fact,  both  in 
itself,  and  through  its  vilterior  manifestation  as 
Christianity.  But,  far  from  being  the  first 
religion  in  its  antiquity,  it  only  appeared 
many  thousands  of  years  later  than  the 
venerable  beliefs  of  Egypt  and  Chaldsea.  It 
was  no  longer  the  perfect  type,  of  which  all 
other  religions  were  only  caricatures  made 
by  human  ignorance  and  passion,  if  not  rather 
by  the  promptings  of  the  devil.      On  the   con- 


Preface  xxv 

trary,  it  depended  itself  upon  a  past  which 
was  mythological  and  pagan ;  and  it  issued 
from  it  by  a  gradual  evolution,  without  ever 
(and  how  could  it  ?)  becoming  wholly  detached. 
And  as  it  was  drawn  closer  to  the  other 
religions,  as  it  was  seen  to  be  one  of  them, 
and  to  have  no  right  to  a  place  apart  from 
or  above  all  the  others,  its  story  was  bound 
sooner  or  later  to  be  fitted  into  the  general 
fabric  of  the  history  of  religions,  making  only 
one  chapter  in  it,  and  that  neither  the  least 
curious  nor  the  least  important. 

It  is  thus  that  a  divine  epic,  which  had  no 
mysteries  so  long  as  faith  was  prostrated 
before  its  wonders,  has  become  a  portion  of 
human  history,  inevitably  complex,  obscure 
in  many  of  its  parts,  and  swarming  with 
infinite  problems.  Because  now,  since  this 
religion  did  not  fall  from  heaven  ready-made, 
and  was  not  maintained  by  repeated  miracles, 
it  is  necessary  to  know  whence  came  the 
details  of  its  worship  and  beliefs,  and  in 
what  circumstances  it  transformed  itself  during 
the  progress  of  the  centuries. 

Our  ultimate  knowledge  about  the  history  of 
religions,  especially  in  what  relates  to  the  oldest 
Oriental  worships,  will  no  doubt  throw  light 
upon  many  of  the  questions  which  still 
puzzle   us   in    the   religion   of   Israel.     For   the 


xxvi  Preface 

present,  many  of  these  questions,  and  above 
all  some  of  those  which  are  connected  with 
the  origins,  remain  undecided.  What  is  cer- 
tain is,  that  the  religion  of  Israel  was  pro- 
duced in  a  relatively  modern  epoch,  and  in 
a  peculiar  environment ;  that  its  evolution 
depended  on  the  actual  history  of  the  people 
among  whom  it  originated  or  developed  ;  that 
the  miraculous  in  its  legends,  like  that  in 
all  other  religions,  was  a  product  of  the 
believing  imagination  ;  that  what  characterises 
it  in  comparison  with  others  is  not  a  series 
of  more  or  less  extraordinary  prodigies,  like 
the  changing  of  the  Nile  waters  into  blood, 
or  the  mysterious  hand  which  wrote  the  fate 
of  Babylon  on  the  wall  during  Belshazzar's 
feast,  but  the  force  of  the  moral  instinct 
which  drew  up  out  of  the  worship  of  Yahweh, 
the  special  Grod  of  Israel,  a  conception  of  a 
universal  God,  and  an  ideal  of  perfect  justice : 
which  made  religion  a  duty,  and  duty  a 
religion ;  which  operated  or  prepared  the 
metamorphosis  of  a  national  and  exclusive 
religion  into  a  religion  both  universal  and 
ardently   proselytising. 

We  are  compelled,  then,  in  this  new  edition, 
to  present  the  religion  of  Israel  as  it  appears 
now  to  the  historian,  both  in  itself  and  in 
its   own   development,   as    well   as   in   its   rela- 


Preface 


xxvii 


tion  to  the  other  religions  of  antiquity,  and 
to  the  general  history  of  religion.  The 
reader  must  please  admit  that  a  summary 
exposition,  such  as  this  is,  will  not  allow  of 
arguments,  nor  of  special  proofs,  nor  even 
of  references  beyond  those  to  the  Biblical 
sources.  We  have  tried  to  show  as  much  as  is 
possible  the  degree  of  certainty  or  of  proba- 
bility which  pertains  to  our  varying  conclusions. 
Many  of  these  can  only  be  hypotheses.  Those 
who  are  thereby  astonished,  and  who  find  that 
a  solid  tradition  is  thrown  over  for  mere 
guesses,  will  show  only  that  they  do  not  yet 
understand  the  real  nature  of  the  tradition 
which  they  extol,  and  of  the  evidence  which 
the  historian  must  interpret.  A  plausible  con- 
jecture is  always  worth  more  than  a  false 
assertion,  even  when  it  is  traditional.  And 
what  is  really  important  in  such  matters  is  the 
general  truth  of  the  landscape,  notwithstanding 
some  inevitable  haziness  in  the  details. 

It  is  natural  that  an  attempt  of  this  nature 
should  appear  extremely  rash  to  people  who 
accept  all  the  narratives  of  Scripture  as  literal 
history,  and  who  take  refuge,  for  matters 
which  concern  the  origins  of  religion,  in  the 
point  of  view  set  forth  by  Bossuet  in  his 
Discours  sur  VHistoire  Universelle.  Faith  is 
never  disproved  ;  and  we  have  no  intention  of 
refuting  either  Bossuet  or  his  modern  followers. 


xxviii  Preface 

But,  looking  only  at  the  probability  of  opinions, 
one  may  hold  such  a  refutation  to  be  superfluous ; 
because  it  has  been  done  long  ago,  and  it  would 
be  useless  to  do  it  over  again. 

Others,  j)erhaps,  will  pronounce  us  sufficiently 
retrograde,  or  at  least  too  cautious,  since  we 
do  not  overflow  with  pan-hahylonisin,  as  it 
has  been  made  fashionable  by  learned  Assyrio- 
logists,  or  even  with  such  and  such  a  system 
of  religious  philosophy,  quite  novel  doubtless, 
and  full  of  promise. 

The  life  of  the  Israelite  religion  did  not 
consist  in  a  series  of  annexations  from  neigh- 
bouring worships ;  and,  though  foreign  influ- 
ences cannot  be  denied,  the  fundamental 
character  of  Jahvism  must  be  sought  else- 
where than  in  its  assimilative  powers.  The 
question  of  borrowing,  then,  is  secondary : 
it  cannot,  either,  be  decided  without  direct 
evidence,  certain  connections,  and  detailed  ana- 
logies ;  certainly  not  by  coincidences  which  may 
be  fortuitous,  or  by  superficial  resemblances. 
An  Assyriologist  of  great  eminence  has  been 
able  to  maintain  that  the  Babylonian  epic  of 
Gilgamesh  inspired  all  the  Biblical  story, 
including  the  Gospels,  and  even  the  Greek 
mythologies :  proofs  have  been  brought  for- 
ward ;  but  the  system  is  not  proved,  and  every- 
thing looks  as  though  we  should  have  to  wait 
for  that.     Another  Assyriologist,  who  is  not  less 


Preface  xxix 

considerable,  wishes  to  explain  the  patriarchal 
and  Mosaic  legends,  even  the  histories  of  the 
Judges  and  of  David,  and  all  mythologies, 
by  the  astrological  myths  of  Babylon.  Chal- 
daea  seems  to  have  been,  in  fact,  the  land  of 
astrology,  and  also  of  astronomy;  but  the 
descent  of  the  Biblical  traditions  from  the  Baby- 
lonian myths  has  not  been  established  clearly, 
except  for  the  greater  part  of  those  which  are 
outlined  in  the  first  eleven  chapters  of  Genesis. 
Let  us,  then,  wait  for  the  years  to  prove  the 
system  of  M.  H.  Winckler.  Historical  truth 
does  not  as  a  rule  dwell  in  such  vague  and 
arbitrary  conclusions. 

We  should  also  be  sober  in  our  conjectures 
about  the  worship  of  the  Hebrews  in  pre- 
historic times,  about  the  primitive  religion  of 
the  Semites,  even  about  the  origins  of  religion 
in  mankind.  Some  distinguished  scholars  have 
presented  the  religion  of  certain  uncivilised 
American  and  Australian  tribes  as  being 
necessarily  the  first  stage  in  every  religion,  so 
that  totemism*  would  be  at  the  base  of  Israel's 
religion,  as  of  all  others.  It  may  well  be  that 
the   base  of  all  religions  is    something   just  as 

■^  The  religion  of  a  tribe  bearing  the  name  of,  and  placed 
in  a  strict  relationship  with,  some  species  of  plant,  or  often 
of  animal,  held  to  be  endowed  with  divine  powers,  and 
whose  ancestors  were  supposed  to  be  also  the  ancestors 
of  the  tribe. 


XXX  Preface 

lowly  as  toteniism ;  and  that  everywhere  a 
preoccupation  with  natural  forces,  or  the  wor- 
ship of  spirits,  of  animals,  of  springs  and  stones, 
has  preceded  the  worship  of  gods,  and  above 
all  of  God.  It  seems  not  less  certain  that 
religion  is  a  primordial  factor  in  human 
society,  and  that  it  was  really  the  sacred  bond 
of  the  first  groups,  families,  and  tribes,  in 
which  humanity  began  to  be  conscious  of 
itself.  And  the  laws  of  these  societies  were 
rules,  according  to  our  view  more  or  less 
arbitrary  and  superstitious,  which  resembled 
closely  the  tabus  of  savages ;  commands  which 
were  at  once  religious,  moral,  and  social 
in  their  rude  and  ignorant  simplicity.  But  it 
will  no  doubt  be  advisable,  until  evidence, 
and  above  all  ancient  evidence,  which  is  con- 
tinually becoming  more  full  and  better  studied, 
shall  have  enlightened  the  subject,  not  to 
imagine  too  great  a  uniformity  in  the  religious 
evolution  of  the  primitive  peoples.  It  is  true 
that  analogous  conditions  of  living  produce 
analogous  institutions.  However,  analogy  is 
not  identity.  Has  not  the  human  spirit  infi- 
nite resources  for  varying  the  idola  of  its 
thought  and  imagination,  or  even  the  principles 
of  its  conduct  and  the  forms  of  its  social 
relationships  ?  Let  us,  then,  study  the  history 
of  religions  according  to  historical  methods 
and  by  historical  evidence :  being  sure  that,  if 


Preface  xxxi 

all  the  other  sciences  are  able,  on  occasion 
and  in  a  certain  way,  to  serve  historical  criti- 
cism, as  it  can  also  in  the  same  sense  be  of 
help  to  them,  no  other  science  can  supply  the 
want  of  that  which  is  the  very  substance 
of  history,  namely,  evidence  and  proved  facts. 
An  exhaustive  bibliography  of  the  subject 
here  treated  would  fill  volumes.  It  must  be 
enough  to  point  out  those  recent  works  which 
can  be  studied  with  most  advantage,  and 
which  have  been  used  most  for  the  present 
publication.*  We  make  no  claim  to  supersede 
them.  Nor  do  we  think  we  have  either 
followed  them  blindly  or  differed  from  them 
without  good  reason.  The  finest  independence 
in  such  matters  is,  perhaps,  to  eschew  any 
system,  and  to  keep  as  nearly  as  possible 
to  the  sources ;  so  that  the  mutual  balance 
between  the  old  documents  and  their  new 
interpretation  may  be  adjusted,  as  though 
automatically,  before  the  eyes  of  the  reader. 

*  Lagrange,  Etudes  sur  les  religions  s^tnitiques  (second 
edition,  1905).  Smend,  Lehrbuch  der  alttestmnentlichen 
Religionsgeschichte  (second  edition,  1899).  Stade, 
Biblische  Theologie  des  Alien  Testaments,  i.  (1905).  E. 
Meyer,  Die  Israeliten  nnd  ihre  Nachbarstcemme  (1906). 
Bousset,  Die  Religion  des  Jndent^tnis  ini  nentestament- 
lichen  Zeitalter  (1903).  Schuerer,  Geschichte  des  Jildischen 
Volkes  iin  Zeitalter  Jesu  Christi,  third  edition  (1898-1901). 
Volz,  Jiidische  Eschatologie  von  Daniel  bis  Akiba 
(1903). 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

thanslatoe's  prologue  .  .  .      V 

PREFACE         .....  xix 

CHAPTEB 

I.  THE    SOURCES      .  .                 .                 .                .3 

II.  THE  ORIGINS  ....      43 

III.  THE  OLD  JAHVISM  .       .       .       .95 

IV.  PROPHECY  .....  143 

V.  JUDAISM  .....  193 

VI.  MESSIANISM  ....             237 

INDEX      ......    279 


XX2U1 


THE   SOURCES 


CHAPTER    I 

THE  SOURCES 

THE  principal,  and  one  might  almost  say  the 
only,  source  for  a  history  of  the  religion 
of  Israel,  before  the  Greek  domination,  is  that 
collection  of  books  which  Christian  tradition 
has  defined  as  the  Old  Testament;  and  those 
books  are  preserved,  for  the  most  part  in  their 
original  language,  in  the  Hebrew  Bible.  It  is 
of  these  documents  especially,  which  are  held 
sacred  by  Jews  and  Christians,  that  we  have 
now  to  estimate  the  contents  and  value.  The 
other  writings,  numerous  as  they  are,  which 
deal  with  the  history  of  Judaism  under  Greek 
and  Roman  domination,  until  the  final  over- 
throw of  the  Jewish  nationality,  either  bear 
only  upon  the  external  history  of  religion,  or 
do  not  present  the  same  difficulties  of  analysis 
and  interpretation  as  do  the  biblical  records. 
Moreover,  they  are  submitted  by  everybody, 
without   hesitation,    to    the    ordinary    laws    of 


4  The  Religion  of  Israel 

criticism.  Besides,  if  the  religion  of  Israel  still 
presents,  during  this  period,  many  problems  of 
which  the  solution  is  dubious,  nevertheless  its 
general  position  is  sufficiently  clear,  and  is 
known  with  certainty.  Outlines  and  summaries, 
then,  may  suffice  for  the  non-biblical  sources ;  and 
we  shall  devote  ourselves,  rather,  to  a  criticism 
and  examination  of  the  biblical  authorities. 

§    1 

The  collection  or  canon  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  not  settled  definitely  until  near  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Christian  era.  The  compilation  of 
the  five  books  of  Moses,  so-called,  or  the 
Pentateuch,  was  made  about  the  year  400  B.C. 
This  is  the  Law,  which  is  the  earliest  and 
the  fundamental  part  of  the  Hebrew  Bible. 
The  second  part  embraces  the  series  of  writers 
who  are  known  as  the  ancient  prophets :  the 
books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings; 
and  the  farther  series  known  as  the  later 
prophets :  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  the 
twelve  minor  prophets.  In  spite  of  his  subject 
and  purpose,  Daniel  did  not  get  into  this  second 
series,  which  probably  closed  before  he  was 
made  public ;  but  he  found  his  way  into  the 
third  part  of  the  collection,  which  was  called 
the  Sacred  Writings,  or  the  Hagiographa.  This 
third  part  includes  the  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Job, 


The  Sources  5 

the  Song  of  Songs,  Ruth,  Lamentations,  Ec- 
clesiastes,  Esther,  Daniel,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
Chronicles  (the  Paralipomena  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  Bibles).  The  ecclesiastical  Bible  contains, 
besides  certain  writings  which  circulated  chiefly 
among  the  Hellenistic  Jews,  and  which  were 
not  promoted  into  the  official  canon  of  the 
Synagogue,  Baruch  and  the  Epistle  of  Jeremiah, 
the  additions  to  the  books  of  Daniel  and  Esther, 
Ecclesiasticus,  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  so-called, 
Tobit,  Judith,  and  the  two  books  known  as  the 
Maccabees.  The  series  of  the  earlier  prophets 
was  a  continuation  of  the  Law,  and  must  have 
acquired  its  definite  form  about  the  same  time. 
The  collection  of  the  prophets,  in  the  stricter 
sense,  must  have  been  settled  a  little  later, 
towards  the  end  of  the  third  century  before  our 
era.  The  collection  of  Hagiographa  seems  to 
have  been  established  in  fact,  if  not  officially 
recognised,  about  the  end  of  the  second  century 
before  Christ. 

As  was  natural,  the  canonisation  of  all  these 
books  led  to  a  relative  fixing  of  their  text, 
which  was  soon  honoured  with  a  meticulous 
respect.  Nevertheless,  a  comparison  with  the 
old  Greek  version,  known  as  the  Septuagint, 
shows  that,  during  the  two  or  three  centuries 
immediately  before  the  Christian  era,  the 
Hebrew  copies  contained  numerous  variations ; 


6  The  Religion  of  Israel 

and  that  in  certain  books,  in  Jeremiah  for  in- 
stance, there  were  recensions  or  versions  which 
differed  considerably  from  one  another.  These 
differences,  slight  as  they  may  be,  were  the  con- 
tinuation, in  some  sense,  of  that  long  work  of 
editing  and  compiling,  out  of  which  process  the 
chief  books  in  the  sacred  collection  have  issued 
in  their  present  form. 

Certain  popular  songs,  such  as  the  paean  of 
Deborah  or  David's  elegy  on  the  death  of  Saul 
and  Jonathan,  may  be  considered  the  most 
ancient  documents  in  the  Hebrew  literature. 
From  the  times  of  David  and  Solomon  the 
kings  had  official  archives,  and  historical 
records  soon  came  into  existence.  But  from 
these  sources,  which  were  more  or  less  secular, 
the  pious  writers  who  culled  from  them  have 
utilised  only  those  outlines  and  quotations  which 
they  could  adapt  to  their  purposes  of  edification. 
The  first  experiment  in  a  religious  literature 
may  be  placed,  it  would  seem,  in  the  ninth 
century,  to  which  date  we  may  assign  the 
oldest  fragments  which  have  entered  into  the 
composition  of  the  Hexateuch  (that  is,  the  Penta- 
teuch and  Joshua),  viz.,  the  Jahvistic  and 
Elohistic   histories. 

This  designation  of  the  historical  sources  is 
borrowed  from  the  divine  names  which  are 
used  in  them  respectively.    The  Jahvistic  history 


The  Sources  7 

begins  with  the  creation  of  the  world,  and 
thenceforward  employs  the  name  Yahweh  as 
the  proper  designation  of  God,  implying  that 
this  name  was  known  to  mankind  from  the 
beginning.  The  Elohistic  history  only  begins 
with  Abraham,  the  supposed  ancestor  of  the 
Hebrew  people,  and  it  assumes  that  the  name 
Yahweh,  the  exclusive  title  of  the  God  of  Israel, 
was  revealed  only  to  Moses,  the  organiser  of  the 
Israelitish  nation  and  the  founder  of  its  religion. 
These  two  histories  were  collections  of  legends 
about  the  origins  of  the  Hebrew  people  and  of 
their  religious  practices.  They  have  as  their 
joint  foundation  the  cycles  of  patriarchal  and 
Mosaic  traditions.  Though  they  seem  to  differ 
in  appearance,  the  purpose  of  these  two  cycles 
is  in  reality  the  same  ;  they  both  aim  at  ex- 
plaining and  legalising  the  settlement  of  the 
Israelites  in  the  land  of  Canaan.  The  patri- 
archal legends  present  Israel  through  its 
mythical  ancestors,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
without  laying  much  stress  upon  the  sojourn 
of  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt;  while  the  Mosaic 
legends,  on  the  other  hand,  are  written  with 
a  view  to  the  conquest  of  Palestine,  since  they 
make  the  exodus  from  Egypt  their  basis.  The 
story  of  Joseph  reconciles  these  two  legen- 
dary cycles,  without,  however,  concealing  their 
parallelism. 


8  The  Religion  of  Israel 

The  Jahvistic  history  contains  an  earlier  cycle 
of  legends  about  the  origins  of  mankind ;  a 
veritable  mythology,  of  which  the  foreign 
source  cannot  be  doubted,  although  the  tradi- 
tion of  Israel  has  chastened  the  polytheism, 
and  to  a  large  extent  has  recomposed  the 
material  according  to  its  own  spirit.  The  story 
of  the  flood  was  taken  certainly  from  Chaldsea, 
and  a  narrative  more  ancient  than  that  in  the 
Hebrew  story  has  been  found  among  the  cunei- 
form inscriptions.  The  affinity  is  much  less 
close  between  the  Jahvistic  histories  of  the 
creation  and  of  the  first  sin  and  various 
Babylonian  fables.  Since  Palestine  had  felt 
Babylonian  influences  from  the  earliest  times, 
we  cannot  assign  a  precise  date  to  these  borrow- 
ings, which  we  need  not  suppose  to  have  been 
made  either  directly  from  or  contemporaneously 
with  the  documents  which  have  led  to  a  belief 
in  them. 

It  has  been  possible  to  discriminate  between 
the  Jahvistic  and  Elohistic  sources,  as  well  as 
to  discern  the  other  elements  which  have  been 
combined  into  the  Pentateuch,  and  to  recon- 
struct them,  more  or  less,  because  the  work  of 
compilation  was  effected  by  quite  elementary 
processes,  which  left  unaltered  the  particular 
style  of  each  contribution.  Pains  were  not 
always   taken  to   avoid  duplications   whenever 


The  Sources  g 

the  texts  gave  parallel  accounts,  and  the 
compilers  were  not  embarrassed  even  by  con- 
tradictions when  they  were  not  too  glaring. 
Nevertheless,  the  dexterity  of  the  joinings, 
deliberate  omissions,  glosses,  and  editorial 
manipulations  have  all  made  the  connexion 
and  position  of  many  details  extremely  dubious. 
The  sources,  moreover,  are  not  individual 
compositions,  but  collections  which  had  already 
been  tampered  with  before  they  were  submitted 
to  a  common  editorship.  So  that  behind  the 
Jahvistic  and  Elohistic  documents  we  can  guess- 
at  the  work  of  an  earlier  writer,  who  made 
the  original  draft,  combining  his  material  with 
more  or  less  freedom,  arranging  the  old  legen- 
dary traditions  with  more  or  less  originality, 
fitting  into  his  narrative  old  popular  songs  and 
even  such  other  literary  matter  as  he  had  at  his 
disposal.  But  this  first  attempt  would  be. added 
to  and  rehandled  continually  by  other  persons, 
who  worked  in  the  spirit  of  the  original  editor, 
and  who  belonged,  if  one  may  so  express  it,  to 
his  school.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  Jahvistic 
and  Elohistic  histories  were  wholly  independent 
of  one  another.  Both  have,  in  spite  of  certain 
special  tendencies,  the  same  religious  character. 
In  certain  places  the  Elohistic  history  seems 
more  archaic,  though  many  believe  in  the 
priority  of  the  Jahvistic  history,  and  consider 


lo        The  Religion  of  Israel 

the  Elohistic  to  be  in  some  way  dependent  on 
it.  The  Jahvistic  history  must  have  been 
written  in  Judah  and  the  Elohistic  in  Israel. 
Both  of  them  are  connected  with  those  collections 
of  precepts  which  were  the  nucleus  of  the  Law. 

That  version  of  the  Law  can  be  dated  which 
was  found  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  in  621 
B.C.,  under  King  Josiah  ;  and  it  is  preserved  for 
us  in  Deuteronomy.  Everything  leads  us  to 
believe  that  it  was  composed  for  the  purpose 
of  that  reformation  which  its  discovery  pro- 
duced. But  the  primitive  text,  even  of  this 
document,  has  been  added  to  like  that  of  the 
others ;  and  it  was  manipulated  again  before 
being  mingled  with  the  Jahvistic  and  Elohistic 
histories  during  the  times  of  the  captivity.  It 
was  in  the  spirit  and  temper  of  Deuteronomy 
that  that  re-editing  of  Judges,  of  Samuel,  and 
of  the  Kings  was  carried  out,  in  which  ancient 
documents,  heroic  and  prophetic  legends, 
extracts  from  the  chronicles  and  memoirs  of 
the  kings,  were  all  squared  with  theological 
and  pietistic  interests. 

The  chief  part  of  the  Law,  which  deals 
mainly  with  ritual,  and  which  fills  a  portion  of 
Exodus,  the  whole  of  Leviticus,  and  the  larger 
part  of  Numbers,  contains  a  compilation  styled 
by  critics  the  Law  of  Holiness.*  This  was 
*  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi. 


The  Sources  ii 

arranged    at     Babylon,     during    the    captivity. 
Besides  this,   there  is   material   similar,  at  any 
rate    in    plan,   to    the    Jahvistic   and   Elohistic 
histories,   and   which    is    known  as   the   Sacer- 
dotal History.      It  begins  with  the  creation  of 
the   world   and   continues   till    the    division   of 
Palestine  among  the   tribes,  under   the  leader- 
ship of  Joshua.     It  does  not  linger  among  the 
antique    legends,    which   are    collected    in    the 
earlier  sacred   histories,  farther   than   is  neces- 
sary   to     connect     the    chief    institutions    and 
religious  customs   with   decisive   events   in   the 
past.     Thus,  the  sabbath  is  connected  with  the 
creation  of    the   world ;    the    abstinence    from 
blood,    with    the     deluge ;     circumcision,     with 
Abraham  ;    the  whole  system  of  sacrifices  and 
ritual,  with   the   revelation  at   Sinai.      Finally, 
additions   were    made,    according   to   need   and 
opportunity,  to  the  legislative  code  which  was 
formed   by   mingling    the    Sacerdotal   Histories 
with    the   Law   of    Holiness.       Many    of    these 
additions    would    seem    to    be    later    than  the 
promulgation    of   the    Sacerdotal    Code,    which 
was    made   by   Ezra   in  M4  B.C.     As   the   legal 
precepts  of  the  Jahvistic  record  were  supposed 
to  have  been  dictated  by  Yahweh  to  Moses  on 
Sinai,    and   those  of    the    Elohistic   records    on 
Horeb,  and  Deuteronomy  in  the  plains  of  Moab, 
so   the  ritual  of  the  Sacerdotal    Code  had  also 


12        The  Religion  of  Israel 

been  taught  by  God  to  Moses  on  Mount  Sinai. 
It  is  well  known  that  the  Code  of  Hammurabi, 
which  has  been  discussed  so  frequently  of  late, 
was  revealed  in  a  similar  way  to  the  King  of 
Babylon  by  the  god  Shamash. 

The  Scribes  who  flourished  after  Ezra 
detached  that  part  of  the  Sacerdotal  Code 
which  was  concerned  with  the  division  of  the 
Promised  Land,  and  then,  by  amalgamating 
the  two  compilations  formed  from  joining  the 
Jahvistic  and  Elohistic  history  on  to  Deutero- 
nomy, and  uniting  the  Sacerdotal  History  with 
the  Levitical  Legislation,  they  made  up  the 
Pentateuch. 

The  utterances  of  the  prophets  seem  to  have 
been  collected  at  once  by  their  disciples,  and 
preserved.  The  most  ancient  collection  is  that 
of  Amos  (about  750),  which  has  received  only 
slight  and  unimportant  additions.  The  collec- 
tion of  Hosea's  utterances,  which  is  a  little  later, 
has  come  to  us  under  very  similar  conditions. 
The  Book  of  Isaiah  consists  of  two  parts,  which 
can  be  distinguished  easily :  i.,  chapters  1-39, 
and  ii.,  chapters  40-66.  Not  a  line  of  the  second 
part  can  be  attributed  to  the  prophet  who 
was  a  contemporary  of  Hezekiah.  Two-thirds 
of  this  part  were  written  shortly  before  Cyrus 
took  Babylon,  and  the  remaining  third  was 
composed  in  the  times  of  the  Persian  domina- 


The  Sources  13 

tion.  The  first  part  of  the  book  contains 
prophecies  by  the  original  Isaiah,  amplified 
by  details  borrowed  from  the  Book  of  Kings, 
and  by  prophetical  fragments  belonging  to 
many  epochs,  even  as  late  as  the  Greek 
domination.  The  Book  cannot  have  acquired 
its  existing  form  until  near  the  end  of  the  third 
century  before  our  era. 

The  Book  of  Jeremiah  includes  a  relatively 
large  number  of  authentic  utterances,  dictated 
by  the  prophet  to  his  disciple  Baruch,  and  some 
biographical  information,  arranged  probably  by 
the  same  disciple ;  but  the  whole  was  finally 
re-cast,  filled  out  with  later  pieces,  and 
coloured.  The  Book  of  Ezekiel,  perhaps,  of  all 
the  prophetical  collection,  has  the  most  regular 
construction,  and  has  sujQPered  least  from  re- 
editing  in  traditional  interests.  About  a  third 
of  the  Book  of  Micah,  who  lived  at  the  same 
time  as  Isaiah,  is  authentic ;  the  remainder  was 
added  later,  and  especially  after  the  exile. 
Nahum  wrote  a  little  before  the  fall  of 
Nineveh  (608  ?)  ;  but  his  prophecy,  which  is 
very  short,  has  been  enlarged  by  a  psalm 
placed  at  the  beginning,  and  this  is  post-exilian. 
Zephaniah  wrote  under  Josiah,  but  his 
prophecy  appears  to  have  been  highly  coloured. 
Habakkuk,  the  contemporary  of  Jeremiah, 
prophesied    against     the    Chaldaeans ;    but    his 


14        The  Religion  of  Israel 

utterance  has  been  lengthened  by  two  psalms, 
one  as  a  prologue  and  the  other  as  a  kind  of 
epilogue.  Obadiah  and  Joel  both  lived  after 
the  captivity.  Haggai  was  contemporary  with 
the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  under  Darius  I. 
Zechariah  belonged  to  the  same  period ;  but 
the  second  part  of  his  titular  book  is  not  his, 
and  seems  to  have  been  written  under  the 
Greek  domination.  The  so-called  Book  of 
Malachi  is  anonymous,  and  was  undoubtedly 
written  shortly  before  the  promulgation  of  the 
Sacerdotal  Code  by  Ezra.  The  romance  of 
Jonah  must  have  been  composed  about  the 
year  300,  and  the  psalm  which  that  prophet  is 
imagined  to  have  composed  in  the  stomach  of 
his  fish  was  added  later. 

Thus,  the  handling  of  the  prophets'  books  was 
very  similar  to  that  of  the  books  which  are 
called  historical.  They  were  all  utilised  for  the 
edification  of  the  Jewish  community ;  and,  for 
this  purpose,  they  were  pitched  in  the  key,  so 
to  speak,  of  the  religious  evolution.  The  multi- 
plication of  anonymous  prophecies,  after  the 
captivity,  bears  witness  to  the  decay  of  the 
prophetical  ministry ;  and  the  number  of 
pseudonymous  prophecies  in  the  apocalyptic 
literature,  which  begins  with  Daniel,  is  a  con- 
sequence of  its  total  disappearance,  though 
anonymous    fragments    were    still    added    by 


The  Sources  15 

collectors  of  prophecies  to  writings  which  bore 
the  name  of  some  author.  The  fortune  of 
these  apocrypha  depended  on  the  credence 
which   was   given   them. 

After  a  certain  period  of  hesitation,  most 
critics  have  decided  to  bring  down  the  composi- 
tion of  the  Psalms,  except  perhaps  of  a  very- 
few,  to  a  date  after  the  exile,  under  the  Persian 
domination,  and  even  into  the  times  of  the 
Maccabees.  The  whole  of  the  sapiential  books 
appear  to  be  later  than  the  captivity.  The 
Book  of  Job  was  written  under  the  Persian 
domination,  and  it  is  not  all  from  a  single  hand. 
The  collection  of  Proverbs  is  apparently  of  the 
same  age.  Ecclesiastes  is  later,  and  must  have 
been  composed  in  the  times  of  the  Greek 
domination,  probably  towards  the  close  of  the 
third  century.  The  Proverbs  got  into  the 
canon  as  a  production  of  Solomon,  and  so 
did  Ecclesiastes,  though  it  was  not  admitted 
without  serious  difficulty.  Attributed  also  to 
Solomon,  a  collection  of  songs  for  wedding 
feasts  was  able  to  get  into  the  Bible,  and  to 
hold  its  position  there ;  the  Song  of  Songs,  as 
we  have  it  now,  is  also  of  the  third  or  second 
century  B.C.  It  has  no  bearing  on  religious 
history,  except  through  its  allegorical  interpre- 
tations ;  or,  rather,  through  the  complete  in- 
version which  has  transformed  it  into  a  sacred 


1 6        The  Religion  of  Israel 

and  pious  writing.  The  Book  of  Ruth  would 
seem  to  have  been  written  for  a  controversial 
purpose  by  a  contemporary  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah.  Esther  is  certainly  later  than  the 
persecution  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  and  the 
establishment  of  the  Asmonsean  dynasty. 
Towards  the  middle  of  the  third  century 
may  be  placed  the  composition  of  that 
historical  summary,  edited  in  the  spirit  and 
style  of  the  Priestly  Code,  which  contained 
originally  the  Chronicles  as  well  as  the  Books 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  The  Lamentations 
attributed  to  Jeremiah  are  not  by  that  prophet. 
They  were  written  partly  during  the  exile  and 
partly  after  the  return.  The  Book  of  Daniel 
was  composed  during  the  persecution  by 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  probably  in  the  early 
part  of  the  year  164.  It  was  issued  under  the 
name  of  a  legendary  personage,  who  was  made 
contemporary  with  the  last  Kings  of  Judah, 
with  Nebuchadnezzar  and  the  last  King  of 
Babylon,  and  with  Cyrus. 

The  First  Book  of  the  Maccabees  tells  the 
history  of  the  Jewish  people  from  the  accession 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  until  the  death  of  the 
High  Priest  Simon  Maccabseus.  It  is  the  finest 
piece  of  historical  writing  that  Jewish  antiquity 
has  bequeathed  us  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  it  is 
almost  a  secular  production.     The  author  wrote 


The  Sources  17 

near  the  opening  of  the  first  century  before  the 
present  era.  With  the  Second  Book  of  the 
Maccabees,  which  deals  only  with  the  early 
period  of  the  Maccabsean  rising,  we  are  taken 
back  into  the  atmosphere  of  edifying  literature. 
The  editor  lived  before  the  taking  of  Jerusalem 
by  Titus,  and  he  professes  to  abridge  an  earlier 
writer,  Jason  of  Cyrene,  who  must  have  com- 
posed his  work  in  the  latter  half  of  the  second 
century  B.C.  The  Book  of  Tobit  is  a  pious 
novel,  founded  on  a  popular  story ;  it  was 
composed  probably  in  the  second  century  before 
our  era  by  some  Jew  of  the  dispersion. 
Judith  is  also  a  romance,  but  more  national 
than  pious ;  it  is  very  similar  in  tendency  to 
Esther,  and  is  most  probably  of  the  same 
period.  The  Epistle  attributed  to  Jeremiah  is  a 
production  of  Hellenistic  Judaism,  and  it  is  not 
possible  to  date  it  even  approximately.  The 
whole  of  Baruch  seems  to  have  been  written 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the 
Romans  in  a.d.  70.  The  Book  of  Ecclesiasticus 
was  put  together  about  the  year  200  B.C. ;  it 
would  have  been  admitted  into  the  Hebrew 
canon,  with  Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes,  if  the 
author,  instead  of  advertising  himself,  had 
placed  his  work  under  the  patronage  of 
Solomon.  The  author  of  Wisdom  took  that 
course ;  but,  as  he  wrote  in  Greek,  he  was  only 

3 


1 8        The  Religion  of  Israel 

able    to    get   into    the    canon   of  the   Christian 
Church. 

In  conclusion,  it  will  be  fitting  to  mention 
here  the  psalms  attributed  to  Solomon,  and 
which  were  written  about  the  year  50  B.C.,  as 
well  as  the  pseudonymous  apocalypses,  which 
followed  the  precedent  of  Daniel,  those  of  them 
at  least  which  preceded  the  arrival  of  Christ- 
ianity. The  Book  of  Enoch  is  a  collection  of 
writings  which  are  later  than  Daniel ;  but  most 
of  them,  if  not  all,  are  earlier  than  the  Christian 
period.  The  Assumption  of  Moses  was  issued 
early  in  our  era ;  and  there  are  compositions 
of  Jewish  origin  in  the  Sibylline  Books.  Many 
other  apocryphal  writings  are  lost.  From  the 
time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  more  especially, 
Hellenistic  Judaism  was  most  proHfic  in  pseud- 
epigraphical  writings,  which  were  composed 
for  purposes  of  controversy  and  edification. 
One  may  assert,  without  being  paradoxical,  that 
impersonality  has  been  the  leading  character- 
istic of  Israelitish  literature  from  its  beginning ; 
but  that  anonymity  prevailed  in  ancient  times, 
while  in  Judaism,  and  since  the  Greek  domin- 
ation, pseudonymity  grew  to  outrageous  pro- 
portions. This  habit  is  not  without  significance 
for  the  historian ;  neither  has  it  failed  to  raise 
many  problems  for  the  critics. 


The  Sources  19 

§  2 

It  was  neither  a  simple  nor  an  easy  task  to 
construct  a  consistent  and  fairly  certain  history 
from  this  chaos  of  traditions,  which  were  manipu- 
lated and  changed  perpetually  :  from  this  mass 
of  writings  which  were  without  author  or  dates, 
unless  they  were  spurious  and  misdated. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  several  scholars  have 
thought  it  impossible  to  find  a  key  to  the 
religious  history  of  Israel  before  the  Babylonian 
captivity  ;  and  that,  relying  upon  the  tone  and  cer- 
tain peculiarities  of  the  final  re-editing,  they  have 
maintained  that  all  the  books  of  the  Hebrew 
canon  were  composed  after  the  exile.  This 
view  would  simplify  the  task  of  the  historian 
enormously ;  but  it  would  mean  a  considerable 
suppressing  of  criticism,  and  so  of  history.  A 
closer  study  of  the  peculiar  genius  of  this 
literature,  more  attention  to  the  processes  of 
editing  and  of  construction,  and  to  the  various 
elements  which  are  combined  sometimes  in 
the  same  book  and  even  on  the  same  page, 
enable  us,  it  would  seem,  to  acknowledge  more 
genuine  material,  and  to  derive  from  it  a  richer 
store  of  information. 

No  text,  really,  can  be  worthless  to  an  his- 
torian ;  because  his  first  business  is  to  settle 
its  meaning,  and   then,   if   he   can,  to   discover 


20        The  Religion  of  Israel 

its  origin.  For  instance,  a  story  about  the 
creation  of  the  world,  which  one  may  read 
in  the  Bible  or  elsewhere,  may  not  be  his- 
torical in  itself ;  but  it  does  express  the  beliefs 
and  thoughts  of  given  times  and  circum- 
stances. The  Book  of  Job  is  not  a  record 
of  patriarchal  history,  but  it  does  inform  us 
about  the  problems  which  were  being  stirred 
in  Jewish  minds  under  the  pressure  of  the 
Law.  Stories  like  Esther  and  Judith,  or  Jonah 
and  Tobit,  if  they  be  taken  literally,  give  us 
only  false  notions  about  the  relations  of  Israel 
with  Nineveh  and  the  Assyrian  monarchy,  or 
with  the  Kings  of  Persia  and  their  court  at 
Susa  ;  but  they  are  invaluable  witnesses 
to  the  religious  and  moral  atmosphere,  or  to 
family  relations,  or  to  the  bitterness  of  national 
feeling,  in  the  Jewish  community  at  certain 
definite  epochs.  The  history  of  primitive  ages 
in  the  sacerdotal  documents  of  the  Hexateuch 
is  a  tissue  of  exaggerations  and  impossibilities ; 
but  how  much  does  it  not  reveal  to  us  about 
the  mentality  of  the  Jews  as  they  returned 
from  exile?  And  do  not  all  the  primitive  legends 
enable  us  to  realize  in  a  living  way  the  times 
which  preceded  the  theological  reformation 
and  the  predominance  of  the  Law  ?  Thus  the 
chaos  becomes  a  veritable  mine  for  those  who 
understand  how  to  work  it. 


The  Sources  2i 

Assuredly,  however,  historical  information  is 
more  easy  to  compile  for  the  post-exilian  times  ; 
although  the  pre-exilian  are   not   wholly   dark. 
No  one  disputes  the  general  outlines  of  Israelite 
history  after  the  establishment  of  the  Kingdom : 
a    short    period    of    unity,    under    David     and 
Solomon  ;  a  schism  between  Ephraim  and  Judah 
under    Solomon's    successor,    and    an    ensuing 
period  of  hostility;    Ephraim   then   threatened 
by    Damascus,    and    soon    after    destroyed   by 
Assyria;     Judah   overthrown   a   little   later  by 
Babylon ;  but  its  remnant  forming  itself  again 
into  a  community  with  religious  autonomy  under 
the  sovereignty  of   Persia,   Greece,   and   Rome. 
Now  this  frame-work  of  political   history  may 
be  reconstructed  from  our  existing  documents  ; 
and,  in  a  similar  way,  our  documents  are  fitted 
into  this  frame-work.     So  also  is  the  evolution 
of  the  religious  history,   which   was   always   in 
the  closest  relation  with  the  political  history. 

The  system  of  Deuteronomy  which  was  so 
unreal  in  its  presentation  of  the  past,  and  the 
conceptions  of  the  Priestly  Code  and  of  Chron- 
icles which  were  even  more  artificial,  were  not 
able  to  eliminate  every  thing  which  stultified 
them  in  the  genuine  traditions  of  antiquity. 
Post-exilian  Judaism  only  recognised  one  sanc- 
tuary where  it  was  lawful  to  sacrifice  to  the 
God  of  Israel :  this  is  a  certain  fact,  guaranteed 


22        The  Religion  of  Israel 

by  all  the  evidence  which  we  have,  both  sacred 
and   profane,    for   the    last    period    of    Jewish 
history,  that  is  to  say  after  the  captivity.     But 
tradition     asserts    that    this    fact,    which    was 
equally  strange  and  undeniable,  was  of  Mosaic 
institution ;  though  this  did  not  hinder  the  avowal 
that  it  was  not   the   ancient   practice.      For   it 
names  the  King  who  destroyed  the  sanctuaries 
outside  Jerusalem,  namely  Josiah ;   and  it  goes 
on  to  describe  the  occasion :   the  priest  Hilkiah 
finding  in  the  Temple  a  book  of  the  Law  which 
prescribed  this  rule.     Josiah  had  no  knowledge 
that  Yahweh  had  made  this  revelation  to  Moses, 
and  all  his  predecessors  had   been   as   ignorant 
of  their  duty  as  himself.     Tradition  also  affirms 
that  they  had  not  carried  it  out.     Deuteronomy, 
too,   does   not   require   this   unity  of  sacrificial 
service  as  a  thing  natural  and  needing  no  ex- 
planation ;   it  describes  it,  rather,  as  a  measure 
directed    against    the    innumerable    sanctuaries 
which  existed  throughout  the  country.     From 
this    clue,    and    from    many    others    which   are 
subsidiary  to  it,  we  can  see  that  Deuteronomy, 
at  any  rate  in  its  chief  contents,  was  the  very 
book  of  which  the  discovery  caused  the  action 
of   Josiah.      Deuteronomy,    moreover,    in    style 
and    language    has    the     closest    similarity    to 
Jeremiah,  who  was  the  leading  prophet  of  that 
age. 


The  Sources  23 

A  reformation  postulates  an  existing  state 
which  it  is  desirable  to  change,  because  it  is 
unsatisfactory.  Before  Josiah,  every  town  or 
hamlet  possessed  its  own  place  of  worship, 
where  it  sacrificed  to  the  national  God.  A 
collection  of  laws,  which  was  shorter  and  more 
archaic  in  form  than  Deuteronomy,  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant,  embedded  in  Exodus,  authorizes 
sacrifice  "  in  every  place  where  Yahweh  has 
caused  his  name  to  be  remembered."*  Besides 
this,  Amos  and  Hosea,  who  preached  in  Ephraim, 
did  not  require  that  men  should  go  to  Jerusalem 
to  sacrifice.  They  protested  against  sacrifices 
in  general,  because  they  saw  that  there  was  a 
better  and  more  efficacious  way  of  serving  God. 
The  legends  of  Samuel  and  Elijah  exhibit  those 
prophets  themselves  sacrificing  away  from  the 
sanctuary  of  the  ark,  and  in  a  manner  not 
prescribed  by  the  ritual  attributed  to  Moses. 
It  is  not  less  significant  that  the  Jahvistic  and 
Elohistic  histories  take  the  patriarchs  to  the 
very  sanctuaries  which  were  condemned  by 
Deuteronomy  :  to  Bethel,  to  Shechem,  to 
Hebron,  to  Beersheba,  as  though  to  dedicate 
them  in  perpetuity  to  the  worship  of  Yahweh. 
To  these  patriarchal  and  prophetic  legends  might 
be  added  legends  from  the  heroic  days  of  the 
Judges,  which  bear  witness  to  religious  practices 
^  Exodus  XX.  24. 


24        The  Religion  of  Israel 

very  different  from  those  which  are  authorized 
by  the  legislation  of  Deuteronomy  and  of  the 
Priestly  Code. 

The  various  documents  fall  into  groups,  and 
throw  light  upon  one  another.  Ezekiel  is  a 
prelude  to  the  Sacerdotal  Code  which  guided 
the  reformation  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah ;  and 
the  Chronicles  depend  on  it,  as  giving  a  mis- 
representation of  history  in  agreement  with 
the  sacred  legislation.  Jeremiah  goes  with 
Deuteronomy,  which  was  ushered  in  by  the 
ministry  of  Amos,  Hosea,  and  Isaiah ;  and 
which  itself  inspired  the  commentary  on  the 
traditions  deposited  in  the  books  of  Judges, 
Samuel,  and  Kings.  Taken  out  of  their  set- 
ting, these  traditions  and  the  patriarchal  legends 
give  some  notion  of  the  religion  of  Israel  before 
the  literary  prophets,  and  before  any  official 
promulgation  of  a  law  attributed  to  Moses. 

These  legends  themselves  justify  certain  de- 
ductions, more  or  less  probable,  concerning  the 
origins  of  the  Israelite  people  and  religion. 
They  were  not  imagined  altogether  by  the 
contemporaries  of  the  early  Kings  of  Israel  and 
Judah ;  but  they  represent  national  memories, 
more  or  less  vitiated  and  transformed  by  the 
lapse  of  time.  Although  the  patriarchal  legends, 
for  instance,  teach  us  nothing  about  the  per- 
sonages who  figure  in  them,  for  the  good  reason 


The  Sources  25 

that  they  never  existed  ;  yet  they  do  inform  us, 
not  only  about  the  genius  of  ancient  Israel,  but 
about  its  origins,  about  the  events  which 
moulded  it  into  a  people,  and  about  its  relations 
with  its  neighbours  or  with  the  populations 
which  preceded  it  on  the  soil  of  Palestine. 
None  of  these  things  can  be  indifferent  to  the 
history  of  a  religion  which  has  been  modified 
by  these  circumstances  and  connexions.  If  the 
deductions,  which  have  been  mentioned,  cannot 
have  either  the  precision  or  the  certitude  of 
direct  and  authentic  evidence  they  do  not  cease 
to  be  legitimate,  provided  they  are  used  with 
tact.  Indeed,  they  constitute  the  history  of 
times  which  are  wanting  in  more  exact  inform- 
ation. Abraham  and  Sarah  are  mythical 
personages  ;  but  their  legend  proves  the  impor- 
tance of  the  sanctuaries  at  Hebron,  and  the 
annexation  of  them  to  the  God  of  Israel.  For 
these  holy  places  existed  before  the  coming  of 
the  Hebrews,  and  they  belonged  to  the  Gods 
which  were  specially  venerated  by  the  popu- 
lations of  Canaan.  It  is  hardly  rash  to  guess 
that  Abraham  and  Sarah  were  the  ancient 
divinities  of  the  district,  who  were  harmonised 
in  the  legend  so  as  to  be  subordinated  to  the 
God  who  supplanted  them.  We  are  told  that 
Jacob,  after  wrestling  with  Yahweh  through 
a  whole  night,   was   called   Israel  by  the   God 


26        The  Religion  of  Israel 

who  failed  to  conquer  him.  This  miraculous 
contest  is  no  more  historical  than  the  battle 
of  the  Titans  with  Jupiter ;  but  it  enables  us 
to  see  clearly  that  the  tribes  who  were  con- 
sidered the  posterity  of  Jacob  only  took  the 
name  of  Israel  at  the  period  of  the  conquest.  It 
also  leads  us  to  suspect  that  Jacob  himself  was 
a  divine  personage ;  and,  as  the  memories  of 
the  patriarch  are  connected  with  the  sanctuary 
of  Bethel,  his  place  of  worship  probably  was 
there.  Abraham  never  went  into  Egyj)t ;  but 
the  fable  which  brought  him  there  was  made 
to  support  the  Mosaic  legends,  as  they  required 
an  old  connexion  of  the  Hebrews,  while  still 
nomads,  with  the  land  of  the  Pharaohs.  The 
legend  of  Joseph  has  a  similar  meaning ;  and 
as  it  was  pretended  that  the  tomb  of  this 
patriarch  was  at  Shechem,  it  came  about  that 
Shechem  had  a  sacred  cave  like  that  of  Machpelah 
at  Hebron  ;  and  the  hero  said  to  be  buried  in 
it  no  doubt  originated  also  in  a  God.  The 
legend  of  Isaac,  which  gravitated  round  Beer- 
sheba,  leads  us  to  suppose  that  Isaac  also  had 
been  the  divinity  of  that  shrine. 

As  the  old  population  of  Canaan  was  not 
exterminated,  as  it  should  have  been,  by  the 
invading  tribes,  but  was  progressively  conquered 
and  assimilated  by  them,  so  the  religious 
customs,  the  myths,  the  Gods,  of  the  Canaanite 


The  Sources  27 

sanctuaries,  entered  little  by  little,  and  by 
transforming  themselves,  into  the  traditions  of 
Israel.  This  double  assimilation  is  revealed 
and  witnessed  to  by  the  ancient  narratives. 

The  original  meaning  of  these  ancient  legends, 
so  far  as  it  can  be  restored  conjecturally, 
would  be  no  longer  intelligible,  even  to  the 
sharpest  criticism,  if  a  comparison  with  other 
religions  of  antiquity,  and  even  with  the  non- 
semitic  ones,  did  not  help  us  to  discover  and 
interpret  it.  But  analogous  cases  are  not 
wanting  to  us.  Jacob  and  his  twelve  sons, 
who  are  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel,  have  just 
as  much  reality  as  the  forefathers  of  the 
Greeks ;  as  Hellen  and  his  posterity,  Doros 
and  iEolos,  Xuthos,  Ion,  and  Achseus.  The 
eccentric  and  ancient  customs,  circumcision, 
abstinence  from  blood,  distinctions  of  clean 
and  unclean,  of  purity  and  impurity,  seem 
open  to  at  least  a  satisfactory  explanation 
when  the  same  or  analogous  practices  are  met 
with  among  other  primitive  peoples.  Not  only 
the  artless  cosmogony  of  the  Jahvistic  historian, 
but  the  more  advanced  theory  of  the  sacerdotal 
history,  and  the  story  of  the  flood  as  well, 
have  their  parallels  and  their  originals,  at  least 
as  to  the  frame-work  of  the  narratives,  in 
old  eastern  mythologies,  and  especially  in  the 
Chaldaean.      And   the   nabi   of   Israel,   the   wild 


2  8        The  Religion  of  Israel 

and  half-mad  prophet,  has  his  brethren  in 
other  religions.  Moses  ihimself,  with  his 
magician's  rod,  is  like  those  divining  priests 
who  are  found  more  or  less  anywhere.  The 
strange  oracle  consulted  by  Saul  and  David, 
and  which  answered  the  questions  put  to  it 
by  throwing  lots,  has  its  resemblances  else- 
where. If  the  religion  of  Israel  reaches  a  great 
height  in  its  prophets  of  the  seventh  and 
eighth  centuries,  in  its  psalmists,  and  in  the 
author  of  Job,  nevertheless  its  origin  was  very 
humble.  The  farther  back  one  explores  towards 
that  origin,  the  more  do  possibilities  of  com- 
parison abound ;  and  they  make  up,  in  some 
degree,  for  the  ominous  gaps  and  obscurities 
in  the  evidence. 


§   3 

Some  questions,  however,  of  extreme  gravity 
remain,  and  always  probably  will  remain,  with- 
out any  certain  answer.  Of  this  nature  are 
questions  about  the  sojourn  of  Israel  in  Egypt 
and  the  exodus,  to  point  to  the  most  glaring 
instance  ;  since  they  bear  upon  the  actual  origin 
of  the  worship  of  Yahweh.  The  most  ancient 
tradition  was  from  the  first  over-burdened  with 
contradictory  legends.  Neither  the  details  of 
the   sojourn   in   Egypt,   nor   of   the   coming   of 


The  Sources  29 

Israel  to  Sinai,  nor  of  the  career  of  Moses,  can 
be  disentangled  clearly. 

The  legend  of  Joseph  personifies  the  arrival 
of  Israel  in  Egypt ;  but  it  is  impossible  to  think 
that  Israel  came  into  Egypt  as   a  family,  and 
went  out   as   a  nation.     Jacob   and  his  twelve 
sons  represent  Israel  collectively  :  Israel  must, 
therefore,   have   come   in   as   a  nation.     Never- 
theless the  tradition  enables   us   to  see  clearly 
that  Israel  only  existed  as  a  nation  after  it  had 
taken  Yahweh   as    its    God ;   and  that  Yahweh 
only  became  the  God  of  Israel  after,  or  in  conse- 
quence of,  the  exodus.     Before  that,  Israel  did 
not  exist  as  an  assemblage   of  tribes  bound  to 
one  another   by  a  common  worship :  it  existed 
only  as  a  number  of  kindred  tribes  wandering 
over    the    Arabian     desert     and     through    the 
peninsula  of   Sinai.      Nothing   hinders  us  from 
believing  that  some  of  these  tribes  established 
themselves  for  a  certain  time  on  the  frontiers 
of   Egypt,   in  the    land   of    Goshen;   and   that, 
not   satisfied   with   the    conditions   there,   they 
moved    away    again    to    rejoin   their  brethren 
in    the    desert.      It    is    not,    however,    by  any 
Egyptian  influence  upon  the  religion  of  Israel 
that    one    can    prove    this;    because    hardly  a 
trace  of  any  such   influence   can  be  made  out: 
the  tradition  depends  solely  on  the  persistence 
with   which    the   memory   of   some   early  con- 


30        The  Religion  of  Israel 

nexion  with  Egypt  was  maintained ;  a  connexion 
witnessed  to  by  the  legends  of  Abraham, 
Joseph,  and  Moses.  Still  these  legends  are  but 
legends  :  the  artificial  and  accumulated  details 
which  they  may  exhibit,  which  assuredly  they 
do  exhibit,  prevent  us  from  judging  with  any 
certainty  about  their  real  and  historical  sig- 
nificance. 

In  any  case  it  seems  plain  that  the  memories 
of  Egypt,  "  the  house  of  bondage,"  and  of  the 
exodus,  acquired  through  tradition  an  import- 
ance which  was  always  growing,  and  which 
they  did  not  have  in  the  beginning.  The 
conquest  of  Canaan  was  made  from  the  east, 
by  crossing  the  Jordan,  for  the  occupation  of 
the  country  held  by  those  tribes  to  which  the 
name  of  Israel  more  properly  belonged ;  and 
from  the  south,  by  way  of  the  desert,  for  the 
territory  which  afterwards  became  Judsea. 
The  northern  tribes,  nevertheless,  had  the  same 
God  as  Judah ;  and  it  was  in  the  preceding 
conditions  of  a  common  life  that  Israel  and 
Judah  had  accepted  this  worship.  The  con- 
ditions of  their  nomadic  life  had  brought  them 
into  contact  with  Yahweh,  who,  we  cannot 
doubt,  was  the  divinity  of  Sinai.  The  con- 
nexion between  the  tribes  and  the  God  can  be 
explained  without  reference  to  Egypt ;  but  our 
concern    is   not  with   possibilities.      The   tribes 


The  Sources  31 

in  their  wandering  life  became  acquainted  with 
the  God  Yahweh.  Since  they  all  believed 
themselves  related  to  this  God,  a  sort  of  con- 
federation was  doubtless  formed  among  them 
in  the  beginning  under  the  name  and  patronage 
of  the  divinity.  The  occasion  of  this  treaty 
may  have  been  possibly  an  emigration  of  tribes 
leaving  the  north-eastern  territory  of  Egypt 
to  join  their  fortunes  with  the  allied  tribes 
who  lived  in  the  desert.  It  was  in  the  name 
of  Yahweh  that  the  exodus  was  effected,  and 
that  the  league  of  tribes  was  negotiated. 

Certain  assyriologists  have  argued  that  Egypt 
was  not  Egypt,  but  the  Sinaitic  peninsula, 
which  bore  in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  the 
name  of  Musri,  and  was  thus  confused  by 
Israelitic  tradition  with  the  name  of  Egypt, 
Misraim,  Some  have  gone  so  far  as  to  assert 
that  David  must  have  been  originally  the  ruler 
of  Caleb,  in  the  district  of  Hebron ;  that  he 
submitted,  first  Judah,  and  then  the  other 
tribes,  to  his  authority;  and  that  it  was  he 
who  imposed  on  all  Israel,  the  Israel  which  he 
had  just  consolidated,  the  religion  of  Yahweh, 
a  divinity  who  was  venerated  on  Mount  Sinai, 
in  the  land  of  Musri,  by  the  Arabian  tribes. 
But  this  hypothesis  hardly  needs  refuting. 
Israelitic  tradition  knew  quite  well  what  it 
understood    by   the    word    MisraiTn ;    and    the 


32        The  Religion  of  Israel 

records  about  the  times  of  the  Judges  are  suffi- 
ciently reliable  to  guarantee  the  existence, 
before  David,  of  the  worship  of  Yahweh  by  the 
tribes  who  were  settled  in  Canaan. 

It  is  true,  however,  that  tradition  has 
fluctuated  about  the  locality  of  Sinai.  The 
"  mountain  of  God,"  according  to  the  most 
ancient  texts,  was  not  in  the  southern  region 
of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  where  for  centuries 
that  high  peak  was  sought  from  which  the 
covenant  between  Yahweh  and  Israel  had 
been  proclaimed.  Moses  met  with  Yahweh  in 
the  land  of  Midian,*  which  was  in  Arabia,  on 
the  eastern  shore  of  the  Elanitic  gulf.  It  was 
from  thence,  according  to  the  song  which  in- 
troduces the  blessings  of  Moses,  that  Yahweh 
had  come  to  find  Israel : 

Yahweh  is  come  from  Sinai ; 
He  hath  appeared  to  them  from  Seir  ; 
He  shined  forth  from  Mount  Paran, 
And  he  is  come  to  Meribah-Kadesh.t 

To  go  from  the  traditional  Sinai  to  Kadesh, 
which  was  in  the  desert  south  of  Judah,  one 
would  not  travel  by  Seir  and  Paran.  The 
direction    indicated    requires    a    starting-point 

*  Exodus  ii.  15  ;  iii.  1,  2. 

t  Deut.  xxxii.    2.     The   last  line  is  restored  from  the 
Septuagint,  as  the  Hebrew  does  not  make  sense. 


The  Sources  33 

in  the  extreme  north-west  of  Arabia.  Again, 
it  seems  established  now  that  the  most  ancient 
legend  about  the  exodus,  of  which  the  verse 
just  quoted  is  an  echo,  did  not  take  Israel 
from  Egypt  to  Mount  Sinai,  but  straight  to 
Kadesh,  where  Moses  explained  to  the  people 
the  wishes  of  Yahweh. 

Moses  bore,  according  to  all  probability,  an 
Egyptian  name.  If  it  be  thought  that  the 
tradition  of  a  sojourn  in  Egypt  and  an  exodus 
must  be  denied  altogether,  one  is  led  on  also 
to  hold  that  the  personality  of  Moses  is  fic- 
titious, as  that  of  Aaron  seems  to  be,  who  is 
given  him  as  a  brother.  On  the  other  hand, 
his  Egyptian  name  may  validate  the  tradition 
of  a  sojourn  in  Egypt  ;  although  the  story  of 
the  child  Moses  exposed  on  the  Nile,  and  saved 
as  it  were  by  miracle,  may  be  rightly  suspect ; 
since  it  is  constructed  out  of  fabulous  materials 
for  which  there  are  many  other  applications, 
from  the  legend  of  the  old  Chaldsean  king  Sargon 
to  that  of  the  child  Jesus  flying  from  the  rage 
of  cruel  Herod.  The  argument  brought  forward 
just  now  in  favour  of  a  meeting  of  the  tribes 
in  the  desert,  for  the  inauguration  of  the  people 
and  religion  of  Israel,  might  be  urged  as  well 
in  support  of  the  traditions  about  Moses. 
As  the  establishment  of  a  common  worship 
seems    to    be    connected    with    certain    special 

i 


34        The  Religion  of  Israel 

circumstances,  so  it  is  not  incompatible  with 
the  functions  of  a  person  who  may  have  been, 
in  these  circumstances,  the  leader  in  establish- 
ing a  national  and  religious  unity,  as  well  as 
a  priest  and  prophet  of  Yahweh.  This  per- 
sonage may  have  been  the  intermediary  between 
the  tribes  of  the  desert  and  those  in  Egypt; 
and  it  would  be  he  who,  in  the  name  of 
Yahweh,  led  the  latter  to  Kadesh.  The  treaty 
which  united  the  tribes  in  the  worship  of 
Yahweh  may  have  been  ratified  near  that 
sacred  spring,  whose  waters  Moses  is  said  to 
have  brought  from  the  rock  by  striking  it  with 
his  magician's  wand. 

To  this  example,  from  which  some  notion  can 
be  formed  as  to  the  extreme  complexity  of  the 
problems,  and  the  measure  of  probability 
attaching  to  their  solution,  it  would  be 
easy  to  add  a  very  large  number  which 
are  only  hinted  at  in  the  following  chap- 
ters. There  are  other  problems  which  it  is 
now  impossible  to  decide.  Granted  that  the 
legends  of  the  patriarchs  symbolise  chiefly  the 
settlement  of  Israel  in  Canaan,  it  is  useless  to 
inquire  in  what  conditions  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob  were  enabled  to  sojourn  in  the  country 
which  their  descendants  held  afterwards,  or 
what  worship  they  practised.  There  is  no 
interest  either  in  searching  out  the  primitive 


The  Sources  35 

origins  of  the  tribes  of  Israel,  or  their  possible 
migrations  before  the  period  when  they  are 
found  on  the  borders  of  Palestine,  and  already- 
organized  for  its  conquest.  The  stages  in  the 
migration  of  Abraham,  who  was  thought  to 
have  been  born  in  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  then  to 
have  come  to  Haran  in  upper  Mesopotamia,  and 
at  length  from  there  into  the  land  of  Canaan, 
are  perhaps  nothing  more  than  editorial  com- 
binations to  make  a  fictitious  link  with  the 
cycle  of  legends  about  the  creation,  the  flood, 
and  the  genealogies  of  the  nations.  These 
legends  would  seem  to  be  less  ancient  in  Israel, 
or  at  any  rate  to  have  another  source,  than 
those  which  deal  with  the  settlement  in  Canaan, 
and  the  cycle  of  patriarchal  and  Mosaic  legends 
which  are  concerned  with  the  occupation  of 
Palestine.  No  doubt  Israel  belongs  by  race  and 
speech  to  that  group  of  peoples  called  Semitic, 
who  came  very  early  into  Chaldsea,  and  then 
founded  the  empire  of  Nineveh,  who  populated 
the  coast  towns  of  Phoenicia,  and  the  territory 
of  Canaan ;  who  established  on  the  frontiers  of 
Palestine  the  little  kingdoms  of  Idumaea,  Moab, 
and  Ammon  ;  who  furnished  later  the  Aramaean 
migration,  and  who  are  represented  finally  in 
the  history  of  the  world  by  the  Arabs.  But  it 
would  be  vain  to  pretend  to  try  to  fix  the  time, 
the  place,  or  the   circumstances,  in   which   the 


36        The  Religion  of  Israel 

ancestors  of  Israel  were  merged  with  those  of 
the  nations  just  enumerated.  All  that  can  be 
said  plausibly  is  that  the  Hebrew  migration 
happened  soon  after  the  Canaanite,  and  was 
like  an  advance-guard  of  the  Aramaean.  The 
common  cradle  of  them  all  was  Arabia. 

The  proved  usage,  during  the  fourteenth 
century  before  our  era,  in  the  various  countries 
between  the  Euphrates  and  Egypt,  of  the  Baby- 
lonian language  and  of  cuneiform  writing  for 
what  may  be  described  already  as  a  diplomatic 
correspondence  between  the  rulers  of  those 
countries  and  the  King  of  Egypt,  who  was  then 
their  suzerain,  is  a  fact  of  the  highest  import- 
ance for  the  history  of  the  ancient  peoples  of 
Western  Asia.  One  may  deduce  from  it  a  long 
and  vigorous  domination,  and  therefore  a  lasting 
influence  by  the  Chaldsean  Empire  over  all  these 
territories  during  the  centuries  which  preceded 
the  domination  of  the  Egyptians.  But  it  is  not 
possible  to  say  whether  the  ancestors  of  the 
Hebrews  had  their  fortunes  linked  in  any  way 
with  this  Chaldsean  supremacy.  It  seems  even 
very  hazardous  to  establish  any  connexion 
between  this  Chaldsean  predominance  and  the 
origin  which  the  Bible  attributes  to  Abraham. 
The  ancient  hegemony  of  Babylon  did  not  cease 
to  affect  the  history  of  Israel  and  its  religion, 
since  the  Chaldsean  influence  was  exercised  over 


The  Sources  37 

all  the  Canaanite  populations,  with  which  the 
Hebrews  were  in  contact,  and  which  they 
assimilated.  It  is  also  very  probable  that  it 
never  ceased  to  be  exercised  directly  by  an 
official  usage  of  the  Babylonian  language,  and 
by  a  certain  knowledge  of  its  literature,  while 
the  invading  hordes  of  nomadic  Israelites  were 
beginning  to  penetrate  into  the  land  of  Canaan. 
The  cuneiform  texts  of  the  El-Amarna  corres- 
pondence, to  which  we  have  just  alluded,  do 
not  otherwise  give  us  any  special  information 
about  the  history  of  Israel.  If  the  warlike 
bands  of  Chabiri,  who  are  there  mentioned,  be, 
as  is  probable,  Hebrews,  it  follows  that  the 
invasion  of  Canaan  by  their  tribes  had  begun 
about  the  fourteenth  century  before  our  era  ; 
and  no  conclusion  can  be  drawn  about  what 
their  religion  was  or  was  not  at  that  period. 
One  would  like  to  be  assured  that  the  writer 
of  a  certain  letter  found  at  Taanek  (the  ancient 
Taanach  mentioned  in  the  song  of  Deborah*)  and 
which  might  be  of  the  same  date  as  those  found 
at  El-Amarna,  was  a  worshipper  of  Yahweh.  The 
man  calls  himself  Achiyami,  which  might  be  the 
same  name  as  Achijahu  ("  Jahu,"  or  "  Yahweh 
his  brother") ;  and  he  has  a  very  lofty  conception 
of  his  God.f     But  the  identification  of  the  divine 

*  Judges  V.  19. 

t  See  Chantpie  de  la  Saussaye,  Lehrbuch  der  Religions' 


38        The  Religion  of  Israel 

names  is  only  guess-work.  Let  us  say  at  least 
that  the  condition  of  Palestine  at  the  opening 
of  the  Israelite  invasion  is  not  a  matter  of 
indifference  to  our  knowledge,  because  whatever 
we  can  discover  about  the  political  situation 
helps  us  to  understand  the  progress  of  the 
conquest ;  and  all  that  we  can  get  to  know 
about  the  religious  condition  throws  light  also 
upon  the  ultimate  relations  between  Jahvism 
and  the  worships  of  the  Canaanites. 

There  is  much  less  knowledge  to  be  drawn 
from  Egyptian  evidence.  The  mention  of 
Israel  among  the  Palestinian  populations,  in 
an  inscription  of  King  Minephtah,  in  the 
twelfth  century  before  our  era,  tells  us  no 
more  than  that  of  the  Chabiri  from  El-Amarna. 
The  inscription  seems  to  refer  to  tribes  which 
are  still  nomadic  rather  than  to  a  people  settled 
in  towns.  The  names  of  Jacobel  and  Josephel 
in  an  inscription  of  Toutmosis  III.,*  only  prove 
the  usage  of  these  names  to  describe  some 
Canaanite  places,  at  a  time  when  without  any 
doubt  there  was  no  question  of  a  people  of 
Israel.     And  there  are  reasons  for  thinking  that 

gescMcJite.  (3rd  edn.)  II.  352-3.  Tlie  translation  given 
of  Achiy ami's  letter  is  far  from  certain  in  its  details. 

'•'  Sixteenth  centmy  B.C.  The  names  may  be  resolved 
into  Jacob-El  =  "  El  rewards  "  or  supplants,  and  Joseph-El 
=  "  El  assembles." 


The  Sources  39 

the  shortened  forms,  Jacob  and  Joseph,  stand  for 
the  eponymous  divinities  of  towns  or  tribes.* 

In  comparison  with  the  very  ancient  civiliza- 
tions from  which  these  evidences  come,  Israel 
and  its  religion  are  wholly  modern.  It  is  this, 
above  all,  which  is  revealed  to  us  by  an  history 
of  the  East,  reconstructed  in  its  essentials  by 
the  amazing  archaeological  discoveries  of  last 
century. 

-  See  E.  Meyer,  249-53,  281-2,  292. 


THE    ORIGINS 


CHAPTER    II 


THE   ORIGINS 


THE  roots  of  the  Israelite  worship  go  down 
to  the  comnion  hot-bed  of  all  the  Semitic 
religions.  At  the  same  time,  since  it  was  in  its 
beginnings  the  religion  of  nomads  it  differs  not 
only  from  religions  with  a  lettered  mythology 
and  an  elaborated  ritual,  like  those  of  Babylon 
and  Nineveh  ;  but  also  from  the  religion  of  the 
Phoenicians  who  were  addicted  to  shipping  and 
trade,  as  well  as  from  that  of  the  agricultural 
and  settled  populations  of  Palestine :  and  it 
approaches  nearer  to  the  religion,  or  perhaps  to 
the  forms  of  religion,  which  prevailed  among 
the  Arabs  before  Islam.  It  must  be  observed, 
however,  that  the  notions  and  religious  customs 
of  Israel,  though  resembling  those  which  must 
have  prevailed  in  very  early  times  among  all 
the  Semites,  yet  have  many  points  of  analogy 
with  those  of  non-civilized  races,  and  must  be 
compared  with  the  rudimentary  worships  of 
primitive  humanity. 

43 


44        The  Religion  of  Israel 

§  1 

According  to  the  favourite  theory  of  the  last 
few  years,  the  most  ancient  religions  were 
forms  of  animism,  of  spirit-worship ;  and  the 
practices  of  this  worship  were  analogous  to 
the  fetishism  of  savages.  Later  on,  under  the 
pressure  of  various  circumstances,  by  the  ming- 
ling of  tribes,  by  migrations  and  conquests,  by 
the  development  of  society,  an  hierarchy  was 
conceived  among  the  spirits  ;  the  personality  of 
special  Gods,  the  Gods  of  tribes  and  cities  and 
peoples,  was  indicated  more  and  more  clearly  : 
and  this  led  to  polytheism.  A  feeling  of  national 
pride  or  of  theological  fanaticism  may  have  led 
certain  groups  of  men  to  the  worship  of  a  single 
God,  to  monolatry ;  and  by  a  subordination  of 
the  Gods  to  a  supreme  head,  by  varying  systems 
of  a  divine  monarchy  conceived  after  the  fashion 
of  earthly  kingdoms,  there  may  be  found  the 
rudiments  of  monotheism.  Thence,  either  by 
an  intellectual  process  as  among  the  Greek 
philosophers,  or  by  the  influence  of  a  strong 
moral  feeling  as  with  the  Hebrew  prophets, 
men  were  led  on  to  an  exclusive  monotheism. 

It  is,  however,  proper  to  observe,  that  animism 
itself  means  a  process  of  reflection,  and  is  there- 
fore a  form  of  religious  consciousness  which  has 
not  been  identical  throughout  the  human  family. 


The  Origins  45 

Now  uncivilized  man  can  easily  be  imagined  as 
conceiving  and  believing  himself  surrounded 
with  unknown  and  indeterminate  forces,  of 
which  he  might  think  he  understood  the 
symptoms,  and  might  go  on  to  think  that  he 
had  captured  the  influence.  This,  again,  means 
reflection.  But  one  may  assert  that  no  man 
ever  made  any  start  in  religion,  or  even  in  self- 
consciousness,  using  the  terms  strictly,  without 
any  reflection  at  all.  Everywhere  the  vaguer 
notion  of  powers  or  influences,  as  compared 
with  that  of  spirits,  must  have  been  taken 
almost  for  a  natural  experience,  or  for  an 
inevitable  deduction  resulting  from  that  experi- 
ence. Caprice  and  delusion  only  began  with 
the  reasonings  by  which  men  hoped  to  prescribe 
a  method  for  imprisoning  and  directing  these 
mysterious  forces.  Among  primitive  men  this 
method  is  simply  magic.  But  magic  thus 
understood  is  at  least  the  contemporary  of 
religion,  if  it  did  not  always  precede  it.  And 
certainly  an  impassable  barrier  cannot  be  set 
up  between  magic  and  religion  ;  since  magic  has 
existed,  and  still  exists,  under  more  or  less 
attenuated  forms,  in  religions  of  which  no  one 
would  venture  to  contest  the  high  development. 
Magic  is  only  a  ruder  way  of  handling  the 
divine.  It  is  religion  not  yet  differentiated 
from  the  commoner  human  functions :  and  not 


46        The  Religion  of  Israel 

confined  exclusively  to  the  category  of  things 
sacred.  Magic  becomes  superstition  as  soon  as 
religion  is  born,  just  as  a  lower  form  of  religion 
becomes  superstitious  in  comparison  with  a 
higher.  Magic  may  have  the  fear  of  its  object, 
but  neither  reverence  nor  love  for  it.  Never- 
theless it  means  already  precaution,  regularity, 
even  hope,  in  the  face  of  what  is  mysterious  ; 
one  may  not  say  as  yet  in  view  of  the  infinite. 

The  concept  of  a  religious  evolution  is,  properly 
speaking,  nothing  but  an  hypothesis ;  a  con- 
venient theory  to  make  a  setting  for  the  data 
which  are  given  us  by  the  study  of  religions. 
So  far  as  this,  it  may  help  us  to  a  classification 
of  the  recorded  facts.  But  we  must  be  on  our 
guard  not  to  mistake  this  mere  abstract  setting 
for  an  inevitable  law  or  the  infallible  plan  of  all 
religious  history ;  since  history  does  not  show 
us  the  undeviating  application  of  this  pretended 
law.  The  fetishism  of  savages  has  probably  for 
hundreds  or  thousands  of  years  been  such,  or 
nearly  such,  as  it  may  be  seen  to-day.  The 
ancient  polytheistic  religions  did  not  transform 
themselves  gradually  into  monotheism.  And  as 
the  higher  religions  have  experienced  incontest- 
ably  their  alternating  periods  of  progress  and 
of  decadence,  so  the  lower  religions  have  known 
times  of  growth,  of  impulse  more  or  less 
conscious  towards   a  better   state,  and   then  a 


The  Origins  47 

recoil,  brought  on  either  by  external  circum- 
stances, or  by  that  dull  stagnation  which  is 
inherent  in  all  religious  traditions  that  are  once 
stereotyped  ;  and  finally  they  may  go  through  a 
long  decrepitude,  which  resembles  the  perpetual 
childhood  of  peoples  without  a  future. 

The  monotheism  of  the  Greek  philosophers 
was  not  a  natural  fruit  of  Hellenic  religion  :  one 
might  as  well  say  that  the  spiritualistic  philo- 
sophy of  Victor  Cousin  and  Jules  Simon  was 
a  product  of  Christianity.  These  results  of 
rationalistic  speculation  may  depend  in  some 
ways  upon  the  religious  doctrines  which  existed 
previously  to  them ;  but  they  do  not  follow 
from  them,  since  they  are  wholly  outside  the 
living  religion.  They  are  perhaps  remains  of 
beliefs  which  it  has  been  hoped  might  be  trans- 
formed into  rudiments  of  science ;  but  they 
have  in  them  no  element  of  reformation  or  of 
religious  progress,  and  they  hardly  appertain 
to  the  history  of  religion.  The  Grseco-Roman 
paganism  in  the  course  of  its  existence  went 
through  many  changes  and  adaptations ;  but  it 
remained  until  the  very  end  a  polytheistic 
religion.  It  yielded  to  Christian  monotheism, 
having  been  unable  either  to  absorb  or  to 
transform  it ;  or  to  assimilate  to  it,  at  any  rate 
directly,  by  transforming  itself. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  religion  of  Israel,  as 


48        The  Religion  of  Israel 

we  know  it  by  the  Bible,  was  certainly  a 
monotheism,  in  which  progress  may  assuredly 
be  seen  ;  but  it  does  not  appear  as  the  logical 
and  natural  evolution  of  an  earlier  polytheism. 
The  exclusive  worship  of  Yahweh,  which  was  a 
fundamental  principle  of  the  Israelite  religion 
after  Moses,  did  not  grow  out  of  a  polytheistic 
worship  by  eliminating  Gods  who  had  been 
conceived  formerly  as  equals  of  the  God  of 
Israel,  then  as  his  inferiors,  and  who  were  still 
honoured  in  his  company.  Yahweh,  in  Scrip- 
ture, will  not  tolerate  the  association  of  strange 
Gods  with  himself;  but  he  does  not  seem  to 
remember  that  he  had  to  expel  any  Gods  who 
had  formerly  been  jointly  with  him  the  tradi- 
tional and  lawful  protectors  of  his  people. 

It  is  a  proved  fact  that  ignorant  savages 
have  still  no  other  religion  than  animism  and 
fetishism.  It  is  also  certain  that  the  civilized 
peoples  of  antiquity  nationalized  their  Gods, 
and  formed  an  hierarchical  notion  of  the  divine 
world,  in  which  the  God  of  the  ruling  city  or  of 
the  conquering  race  occupied  the  highest  rank. 
And  it  is  affirmed,  on  the  other  side,  that  clear 
minds,  already  cultured  though  in  polytheistic 
surroundings,  recognised  or  foresaw  that  the 
balance  of  the  world  could  only  be  maintained 
by  a  single  principle  or  by  one  sovereign  master. 
Only  all  these  facts,  which  are  dressed  up  by  the 


The  Origins  49 

historians  of  religion,  do  not  amount  to  a 
mathematical  series,  in  which  every  stage  issues 
from  that  which  preceded,  and  will  result  in 
that  which  follows,  according  to  the  logical 
requirements  of  an  evolutionary  system.  The 
evolution  doubtless  is  real,  but  it  does  not 
follow  a  regular  progression  ;  and  its  various 
manifestations  shatter  all  the  theories  by  which 
we  may  endeavour  to  confine  it. 

All  the  polytheistic  religions  have  been  more 
or  less  fetishist,  but  this  has  not  kept  them 
from  showing  a  certain  tendency  towards 
monotheism,  by  an  hierarchical  subordination 
of  the  individual  Gods  to  a  supreme  head, 
the  sovereign  of  the  other  Gods.  The  majority 
of  known  religions  have  been  formed  out 
of  many  discordant  principles,  through  the 
mingling  of  tribes  and  nations ;  and  the  in- 
ferior elements  which  one  may  meet  with  in 
a  religion  are  not  necessarily  its  most  ancient 
parts.  For  they  may  have  been  brought  into 
it  by  the  influences  of  an  older  worship  ;  and 
by  a  kind  of  survival,  which  often  seems  out 
of  harmony  with  the  principles  of  the  religion 
in  which  it  occurs.  Because  the  higher  religions 
are  not  produced  spontaneously  by  the  lower ; 
and  although  reformers  usually  go  to  the 
traditions  of  the  past  for  their  foundation, 
although  for  their  success  they  need  a  support 

5 


50        The  Religion  of  Israel 

from  the  hopes  and  feelings  of  their  own 
time,  yet  their  personal  action,  inspiration,  and 
experiences  count  high  among  the  causes  which 
have  produced  new  religions.  But,  as  there  is 
never  any  complete  innovation,  so  neither  is 
there  any  uninterrupted  progress  towards  an 
ideal  conceived  by  the  founders  of  religions. 
Preceding  worships  never  cease  to  maintain 
themselves,  in  spite  of  everything,  in  higher 
and  newer  religions.  Polytheism  has  a  tendency 
to  survive  in  monotheism ;  while  fetishism,  and 
even  magic,  are  able  to  lodge  themselves  more 
or  less  in  religions  which  profess  a  theoretical 
monotheism,  and  which  were  established  on 
that  principle. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  multiplicity,  the 
variety,  and  even  the  external  coarseness  of 
the  symbols  are  not  so  incompatible  as  might 
be  thought  with  simplicity  of  faith  and 
purity  of  religious  feeling.  That  primitive 
man,  or  man  come  to  the  earliest  stage  of 
religion,  has  conceived  of  the  divinity  as  the 
immediate  cause  of  natural  phenomena,  and 
at  the  same  time  as  a  spirit,  a  kind  of 
attenuated  genius,  who  moves  freely  through 
space ;  that  he  has  thought  to  put  himself 
into  relation  with  it  by  means  of  a  material 
object,  by  a  fetish  of  any  description ;  this  is 
in  accordance  with   all  the  probabilities  :  since. 


The  Origins  51 

without  referring  to  pagan  mythologies,  a 
storm  is  still  considered  a  theophany  in  the 
Bible;  and  the  God  of  the  patriarchs  used 
consecrated  stones  for  his  shrine  and  symbol. 
But  if  the  materialised  forms  of  the  religious 
thought  be  put  aside,  the  rudimentary  notion 
of  an  all-powerful  God  can  be  detected  in 
the  natural  agent,  and  the  germ  of  God  the 
Father  may  be  discovered  in  an  anthropomor- 
phic spirit. 

It  has  often  happened  that  the  fatherhood 
of  a  God  has  been  conceived  as  real  and 
physical,  not  merely  as  a  moral  relationship ; 
and  the  tutelary  God  of  a  tribe  has  been 
imagined  as  its  primitive  ancestor.  Neverthe- 
less a  moral  notion  of  some  sort  did  exist 
under  this  childish  fancy,  and  the  physical 
paternity  was  only  a  material  explanation  of 
it.  Fetishism  is  a  tangible  witness  to  the  divine 
presence.  Whatever  one  may  do,  there  can 
be  no  religion  without  images.  The  highest 
conception  that  man  can  form  of  God  is  still 
an  idol,  in  the  first  meaning  of  the  word, 
within  which  he  tries  to  bound  the  infinite. 
He  desires  to  feel  God  at  his  disposal ;  and 
inasmuch  as  he  does  not  know  how  to 
conceive  of  him  as  present,  within  himself 
and  in  his  conscience,  he  imagines  him  by 
his    side,   and   wishes    to     control    him    under 


52        The  Religion  of  Israel 

his  hand.  He  wishes  also  to  have  him  on  his 
side  ;  and  generally,  in  practice,  he  does  not  split 
up  his  worship  among  many  supernatural 
beings,  whom  he  might  think  equally  power- 
ful and  equally  interested  in  his  affairs  ;  but 
he  has  a  spirit  or  a  God  who  is  his  own 
special  guardian,  or  that  of  his  family,  his 
tribe,  his  nation,  if  the  sphere  of  his  relationships 
be  enlarged.  This  God  is  in  fact  the  sole 
God  for  him ;  and  polytheism  should  be 
ascribed  rather  to  the  mentality  of  the  wor- 
shipper than  to  his  religion. 

A  w^orship,  then,  comparatively  pure  can 
exist  early,  and  among  tribes  far  removed 
from  civilization ;  under  forms  of  ritual  and 
in  company  with  notions  which  to  us  are 
downright  stupid  or  even  shocking,  but  which 
are  congruous  with  the  mental  state  and  the 
material  circumstances  of  those  who  find  in 
them  a  God  and  a  religion.  A  species  of  tradi- 
tional monotheism  was  thus  able  to  establish 
itself  among  tribes  which  were  cut  off  from 
the  movements  which  produced  the  earliest 
nations  and  civilizations,  as  well  as  the  first 
durable  systems  of  polytheistic  religion.  The 
world,  no  doubt,  swarmed  with  spirits ;  but 
the  tutelary  genius  of  the  family  or  tribe  was, 
from  the  religious  point  of  view,  the  only 
one    which     existed     for    it,     which     had     in 


The  Origins  S3 

relation  to   it  a    well-defined    personality    and 
a  continuity  of  action.     It  was  with   this   spirit 
that  was   established  the  mystical  relationship 
and   the    perpetual    communion    which    consti- 
tute    a    religion:     it     was     he    who    was    the 
lord    and     father,     the     true    chief,    and    the 
supernatural      ancestor.       A      conscious      and 
pondered  monotheism   issued    far   more    easily 
from   one   of  these  tribal  worships,   than  from 
a  lettered   and    intricate    polytheism,    born    of 
political  circumstances,  promoted  into  a  national 
service,     identified     with     the    history     of    the 
people   which  maintained  it,   allegorizing    that 
history  more   or    less    in   its    myths,   and  per- 
petuating itself  by  institutions  which  were  all 
the   more   opposed  to   religious   progress  in   so 
far   as   they   were   united   firmly   to   the  parti- 
cular institutions  of  an  highly  organized  society. 
The  notion  of  duty  has  undergone  the  same 
vicissitudes  as  the  notion  of  God.     There  cannot 
be  a  religion  without    some  kind    of    religious 
morality.      The  God-spirit  stirs  up  a  feeling  of 
personal  devotion  to  himself.  Man  pictures  him 
in  his  own  image,  with  a  will,  desires,  and  even 
caprices,    which    must    all    be    satisfied    if    his 
protection   and   an   appropriate   reward   are   to 
be  earned.     So  far   as   he   is  a  spirit   the   God 
is  to  be  reverenced  as  placable  and  ultimately 
beneficent;  as   a   power  he  is  to  be  respected 


54        The  Religion  of  Israel 

because  he  is  aloof  and  sacred.  But  neither 
his  goodness  nor  his  holiness  are  conceived 
as  fundamental  attributes :  they  are  rather 
qualities  and  motions,  physical  as  much  as 
moral  properties,  and  their  various  aspects  are 
not  clearly  separable.  In  polytheistic  religions 
the  Gods  of  light  are  the  Gods  of  justice ; 
and  even  in  Job  *  the  sun  shaketh  the  wicked 
out  of  the  earth.  This  is  because  physical  candor 
and  moral  purity  were  formerly  associated 
in  men's  "thoughts :  because  the  shining  God, 
the  foe  of  darkness  and  confusion,  who  scatters 
with  his  beams  the  chaos  of  night,  the 
immaculate  God,  whose  very  nature  abhors 
all  corruption,  was,  at  the  same  time  and,  it 
may  be  added,  for  these  reasons,  the  enemy 
also  of  dark  and  maligant  actions.  And 
why  is  it  also  in  Leviticus  f  that  God 
requires  unblemished  victims,  why  does  he 
exclude  from  his  priesthood  the  blind  and 
mutilated,  why  does  he  ban  the  lepers?  It 
is,  declares  the  sacred  book,  because  he  is 
holy ;  and  the  same  reason  is  given,  in  the 
same  terms,  to  forbid  theft,  murder,  and 
adultery. 

Acts    which    hurt    the    welfare   of  the   tribe 
and   the   goods    of   its  members,    which   hit   at 
the     God     himself     through     his     family     and 
*  Job  xxxviii.   12-15.  +  Leviticus  xix.-xx. 


The  Origins  55 

clients,  were  regarded  formerly  as  specially  evil 
and  punishable.  But  it  is  obvious  that  this 
condemnation  was  not  based  on  a  reasoned 
experience  nor  on  profound  arguments.  That 
which  we  now  describe  as  superstition  held  a 
large  place  in  it.  A  man  exposed  himself  to 
the  anger  of  the  spirits  by  doing  such  or 
such  a  thing ;  he  was  liable  to  a  murderous 
explosion  of  that  divine  electricity  which  was 
diffused  everywhere :  his  way  was  barred  by 
a  defensive  prohibition,  absolute  or  relative, 
enacted  by  the  heads  of  the  family  or  clan, 
or  even  by  the  priests,  who  were  still  more  or 
less  wizards  and  magicians  ;  and  such  a  pro- 
hibition was  sacred,  both  in  itself  and  by  the 
ceremonial  of  its  proclamation.  For  the 
earliest  laws,  it  would  seem,  were  tabus :  the 
notification  of  things  which  must  not  be 
done.  The  penalty  was  joined  to  the  prohi- 
bition. Whosoever  violated  the  latter  was 
enveloped  in  a  divine  curse,  outlawed  for  a 
time  or  permanently,  according  to  the  nature 
of  the  case,  devoted  to  the  harmful  powers, 
expelled  from  his  tribe  to  which  he  had  become 
a  danger.  Personal,  family,  and  social  morality 
was  thus  a  religious  morality ;  and  it  was  as 
rudimentary  as   the  religion. 

It  is  from  this  foundation  of  confused  notions, 
in  which  spirit    hardly    disengages  itself    from 


56        The  Religion   of  Israel 

matter,  or  an  abstract  notion  from  sensuous 
feelings,  from  a  mass  of  customs  which  to  us 
are  strange  and  superstitious  that  there  emerges 
suddenly  the  religion  of  Israel :  the  exclusive 
worship  of  a  single  God  who  has,  like  others, 
a  personal  name,  since  he  is  called  Yahweh ; 
but  who  soon  separates  himself  from  the  others 
by  preventing  them  from  holding  a  place 
beside    him. 

§  2 

Patriarchal  elohism  has  formerly  been  dis- 
cussed at  length.  And  it  is  less  needful  to 
delay  over  it  now,  because  we  talk  no  longer 
about  Hebrew  patriarchs,  but  about  Semitic 
nomads ;  and  we  no  longer  try  to  establish  a 
theory,  about  the  primitive  religion  of  the 
Semites,  on  the  Biblical  usage  of  the  word 
Elohim, 

That  word  is  used,  practically,  to  mean  God ; 
although  the  plural  form  seems  to  require 
that  it  should  be  translated  "  the  Gods," 
and  it  often  has  this  meaning  in  Scripture 
when  there  is  a  question  of  alien  Gods.  Some 
people  have  wished  to  see  in  this  a  proof  of 
polytheism  among  the  forefathers  of  Israel. 
Old  grammarians  and  apologists  of  the  Bible 
thought  they  removed  the  difficulty  by  asserting 
gravely  that  the    word   Elohim   was  applied  to 


The  Origins  57 

the  true  God  as  a  plural  of  majesty.  Others 
have  imagined  that  the  plural  num.ber  sym- 
bolised the  m.ultiplicity  of  attributes  or  per- 
fections in  God;  but  this  explanation  is  a 
little  too  metaphysical  and  subtil.  There  is  a 
detail,  too,  which  complicates  the  problem. 
The  singular  Eloh,  which  is  found  in  other 
Semitic  languages,  is  not  met  with  in  Hebrew, 
except  in  poetry,  to  signify  God,  and  then 
with  precisely  the  same  meaning  as  Elohim ; 
it  is  never  used  with  the  meaning  of  "  a 
God."  It  would  seem  that  in  Hebrew  the 
plural  was  older  than  the  singular  ;  the  latter 
being  derived,  as  to  its  usage,  from  the 
former ;  and  the  use  of  the  singular  being 
relatively  new,  limited,  and  almost  unnatural. 
The  use  of  the  plural,  then,  is  not  a 
clear  proof  of  polytheism,  as  if  the  word 
expressed  inevitably  a  multiplicity  of  persons. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  plural  cannot  have 
been  originally  a  term  of  unity.  It  must 
have  conveyed  formerly  an  impersonal  notion, 
though  doubtless  not  an  abstract  one.  It  is 
not  the  spontaneous  definition  of  a  rigorously 
monotheistic  notion.  The  etymological  sense 
of  the  word  is  not  clear  :  it  must  be  related 
to  the  word  El,  which  means  "  God "  or  *'  a 
God ; "  and  which  forms  its  plural  regularly, 
Elim,    divine  beings.     Force    seems  to  be   the 


58        The  Religion  of  Israel 

primitive  notion  attached  to  the  word  El,  and 
it  must  have  had  at  first  a  concrete  and 
personal  meaning ;  an  El  is  a  very  strong, 
supernatural,  and  divine  being.  But  we  must 
not  conclude  that  El  was  formerly  a  sort  of 
proper  name,  which  afterwards  became  common. 
The  use  of  this  word  as  a  proper  name,  or 
as  the  equivalent  of  a  divine  personal  name, 
is  not  more  significant  than  the  usage  of  the 
word  haal,  "Lord,"  under  similar  conditions. 
And  the  etymology  derived  from  the  notion 
of  guidance  or  mastership,  "he  to  whom  one 
is  driven  by  longing,"  or  "  close  to  whom  one 
goes  for  protection,"  even  if  it  were  as  certain 
as  it  is  unlikely,  would  not  prove  that  El 
was  formerly  the  proper  name  of  the  God 
of  the  Semites.  For  this  etymology  would  not 
involve  an  unity  of  being ;  and  it  certainly 
is  arbitrary  to  pre-suppose  a  time  when  the 
ancestors  of  all  the  Semitic  peoples  formed 
a  homogeneous  society  worshipping  a  single 
God. 

Elohim,  as  a  noun  of  quality,  might  mean 
"  a  terror,"  "  a  dread  power."  Hebrew  is 
inclined  to  use  the  plural  to  embody  psycho- 
logical impressions  and  general  notions.  If 
the  existence  of  plurals  of  majesty  be  exceed- 
ingly dubious,  emphatic  plurals  cannot  be 
challenged.     The  same  tribes  who  from  of   old 


The  Origins  59 

employed  the  word  El  to  describe  their  God 
or  some  special  God,  and  the  word  Elira  to 
describe  "  the  Gods,"  might  well  understand  by 
Elohim  the  divine  power,  Avithout  troubling 
about  the  unity  or  the  multiplicity  of  the  divine 
beings.  In  Israel,  where  the  personality  of 
Yahweh  absorbed  the  totality  of  divine  power, 
it  became  habitual  to  apply  the  word  Elohim 
as  a  term  of  unity  to  Yahweh  or  to  any  other 
God,  and  as  a  collective  or  plural  noun  to  Gods 
in  general. 

Nomads  have  a  religion  of  the  clan.  The 
tribe  is  a  social  and  religious  unity.  The  group 
is  responsible  for  the  individual,  and  the 
individual  belongs  to  the  group.  This  spirit 
of  solidarity,  which  makes  of  the  tribe  a  petty 
world,  with  strict  internal  obligations,  but  with 
none  at  all  outside  itself,  is  summed  up,  as  one 
may  say,  in  the  tutelary  genius  of  the  tribe, 
who  is  its  father  and  ruler.  As  it  does  not 
trouble  about  the  rest  of  the  world,  so  it  does 
not  conceive  of  its  God  as  occupying  himself 
with  what  goes  on  upon  earth  and  in  the  skies. 
Heaven  and  earth  are  filled  with  divine  beings 
who  ordain  what  happens.  The  scene  of  action 
of  the  God  does  not  over-pass  the  limit  of 
extension  of  his  human  family.  He  has  his 
special  name,  and  his  favourite  place :  a  spring, 
a  tree,  or  a  grove,  a  stone,  or  a  mass  of  rock. 


6o        The  Religion  of  Israel 

The  poem  which  Deuteronomy  has  given 
us  as  the  blessings  of  Moses  to  the  tribes  still 
describes  Yahweh  as  "him  that  dwelt  in  the 
bush  " ;  *  and  it  is  clear  that  this  bush,  in  which 
the  God  of  Israel  made  himself  known  to  his 
prophet,  was  considered  at  first  as  his  usual 
abode.  That  is  why  Moses  was  warned  to  take 
off  his  shoes  before  approaching  it,  if  he  would 
avoid  being  treated  as  sacrilegious,  f 

The  sanctuary  of  the  God  is  a  place  marked 
out  for  acts  of  worship.  The  rites  practised 
there  have  for  their  sole  end  the  maintenance 
of  relations,  the  community  of  life,  so  to  speak, 
between  the  God  and  his  clients.  And  as  it 
is  a  tie  of  blood  which  unites  them,  so  it  is 
in  blood  that  they  communicate  most  willingly. 
It  is  often  by  a  pledge  of  blood  that  the 
addition  of  a  new  member  to  the  tribe  is 
ratified,  and  also  the  alliances  of  tribes  with 
one  another,  if  it  so  happen  that  several 
coalesce  under  the  auspices  of  their  various 
divinities,  or  of  the  God  of  a  leading  tribe. 
The  common  meal  which  took  place  on  those 
occasions  was  not  merely  a  sign  of  fraternity : 
it  was  understood  as  a  participation  in  the 
same  sacred  life  which  had  its  highest  source  in 
the  God. 

It  may  be  asked,  whence  came  this  God  of 
*  Deuteronomy  xxxiii.   16.  f  Exodus  iii.  2-5. 


The  Origins  6i 

the  tribe  ;  and  sometimes  an  adoption  by  the 
clan  has  been  imagined  of  a  divinity  chosen 
from  a  populous  pantheon.  But,  if  we  go  back 
to  the  beginning,  was  not  the  organization  of 
tribal  worship  prior  to  the  constitution  of 
polytheism  in  a  hierarchy  of  divine  families? 
And,  apart  from  the  influence  of  the  civilization 
and  religion  of  a  settled  people  over  nomads, 
could  one  find  the  leading  Gods  of  the  mytho- 
logies at  the  head  of  wandering  tribes?  The 
ancient  God  of  the  tribe  is  still  not  far  removed 
from  an  attenuated  spirit.  It  is  to  define  him 
too  precisely,  to  say  he  is  the  personification 
of  a  natural  force,  or  even  the  soul  of  an  ancient 
chief  guarding  his  posterity  :  he  might  approach 
to  being  both  one  and  the  other,  without  being 
exactly  either  one  or  the  other.  But  he 
belongs  to  that  world  of  spirits  who  people 
the  air,  the  earth,  and  the  waters,  and  into 
which  also  the  spirits  of  the  dead  may  return. 
How,  then,  did  they  know  him?  Why  did 
they  adopt  him?  Probably  he  made  himself 
known,  like  Yahweh  in  the  bush.  Some 
accidental  and  amazing  chance  may  have  re- 
vealed his  presence,  or  even  the  nature  of 
his  habitation  may  have  betrayed  him.  A 
link  may  have  been  forged  and  strengthened, 
a  kind  of  agreement  struck.  They  may  have 
annexed    the    spirit  by   the    fitting    rites,   and 


62        The  Religion  of  Israel 

the  spirit  may  have  given  himself  to  the  trihe, 
so  far  as  a  spirit  can  give  himself.  Or,  rather, 
the  question  is  not  one  to  be  asked  or  settled ; 
certainly  not  with  the  implication  that  one 
can  imagine  a  society  without  any  religion, 
and  adopting  a  tutelary  spirit  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  having  a  God :  and  is  the  personality 
of  the  God  to  be  explained  by  the  way  in 
which  the  tribe  organized  itself  into  a  conscious 
society  ?  .  .  . 

The  state  of  the  evidence,  it  would  seem, 
does  not  warrant  us  in  affirming  that  the 
Semitic  tribes  went  through  a  period  of 
totemism,  strictly  speaking,  in  which  every 
clan  worshipped  some  kind  of  animal,  to  which 
it  thought  itself  related.  Nevertheless  it  is 
not  fitting  to  be  too  sceptical  in  this  matter, 
nor  to  assert  that  nothing  analogous  is  to  be 
found  among  the  ancestors  of  Israel.  If  the 
Bible  is  accurate  in  connecting  with  the 
memory  of  Moses  the  brazen  serpent  which 
was  the  object  of  a  special  worship  in  the 
temple  of  Jerusalem  down  to  the  time  of 
Hezekiah,  although  the  story  in  Numbers  * 
about  the  cures  worked  by  this  fetish  may 
only  be  a  mythical  explanation  of  the  tra- 
ditional worship,  yet  one  may  infer  that  the 
tribe  of  Moses  held  the  serpent  as  a  sacred 
*  Numbers  xxi.  6-9. 


The  Origins  63 

animal :  that  the  brazen  serpent  had  been  a 
symbol  of  Yahweh,  as  the  bull  was  in  the 
days  of  the  kings  of  Israel ;  and  that  Yahweh 
himself  in  his  beginnings  may  have  been  a 
snake  God.* 

If  we  imagine  several  tribes  preserved  by 
their  way  of  life  and  their  isolation  from  the 
relationships  and  the  commingling  which 
generate  a  practising  polytheism,  in  which  the 
life  of  the  clan  ensures  to  the  tutelary  God 
the  advantage  of  an  almost  exclusive  worship ; 
where  there  still  remains  more  of  animism 
than  of  polytheism  and  mythology  in  the 
modern  sense  of  those  words;  where  the  God 
is  distinctly  personal  without  being  wholly 
disengaged  from  nature ;  where  he  is  not  the 
head  of  a  divine  family,  but  the  parent  of 
his  worshippers  ;  where  the  metaphysical  unity 
of  God  is  not  conceived  more  clearly  than  the 
actual  unity  of  the  world,  or  than  the  physical 
and  moral  unity  of  mankind  in  its  various 
branches  ;  where  the  tribe  forms,  as  it  were, 
a  world  and  a  humanity  limited  by  its  God  : 
through  these  comparisons,  we  should  probably 

^'  See  E.  Meyer,  116,  426-7.  This  author  asks  if  the 
magic  rod  of  Moses,  which  changed  itself  into  a  snake, 
was  not  in  fact  the  brazen  serpent ;  and  also  the  sign 
or  standard  (^les)  which  gave  its  name  to  the  altar  of 
Yahtveh-7iissi. 


64        The  Religion  of  Israel 

get  the  least  imperfect  and  inaccurate  notion 
that  we  can  frame  of  the  very  singular 
environment  in  which  germinated  the  worship 
of  Yahweh,  the  God  of  Israel,  and  afterwards 
the  universal  God. 

§  3 

Before  working  out  the  historical  growth 
and  progress  which  were  attained  by  these 
notions  of  God,  it  may  be  advisable  to  glance 
at  the  details  of  worship  which,  though  insisted 
upon  by  the  Jahvist  traditions,  betray  the  signs 
nevertheless  of  a  more  distant  origin,  and 
show  in  their  own  way  that  the  religion  of 
Moses  and  the  prophets  came  to  light  through 
less  pure  traditions,  which  never  ceased  to 
affect  the  external  forms  of  Israelite  monotheism 
down  to  the  overthrow  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
and  even  right  on  to  our  own  times. 

The  chief  practices  of  the  Mosaic  religion 
did  not  come  from  the  notion  of  one  spiritual 
God,  infinitely  just  and  beneficent,  but  from 
conceptions  which  were  far  less  exalted;  and 
if  the  original  meaning  of  these  practices  was 
modified  in  the  course  of  time,  under  the 
influences  of  a  higher  ideal,  their  primitive 
character  is  not  less  recognisable.  Regarded 
in  the  light  of  these  fundamental  practices, 
the     religion    of     Israel     may    be    reduced     to 


The   Origins  65 

circumcision,  rules  concerning  things  clean  and 
unclean,  sacrifices,  the  sabbath,  the  prescribed 
feasts,  and  the  ark  of  Yahweh.  Now  not  one 
of  these  details  is  attached  necessarily  to  the 
notion  of  a  God  who  is  supremely  just,  and 
to  whom  one  becomes  acceptable  only  by  purity 
of  heart,  for  they  all,  on  the  contrary,  belong 
rather  to  the  notion  of  a  tribal  or  national  God. 
They  pertain,  also,  to  the  notion  of  a  God  of 
nature,  who  lives  with  his  people  and  as  they 
do,  supplying  them  abundantly  with  the  fruits 
of  the  earth,  and  the  fruitfulness  of  their  cattle. 
And  behind  these  notions  even  earlier  traces 
can  be  detected,  reaching  back  into  the  period 
when  magic  was  confounded  with  religion. 

Some  people  have  aimed  at  giving  a  physical 
reason  for  the  origin  of  circumcision.  But 
granted  that  there  was  in  fact  such  a  reason, 
which  is  at  best  uncertain,  the  men  who  first 
adopted  this  custom  were  incapable  of  under- 
standing it  as  a  medical  practice  or  as  a  matter 
of  common  utility.  They  mingled  with  it 
superstitious  fancies  which  for  us  must  deprive 
it  of  any  exalted  symbolism.  To  do  violence 
to  the  human  body,  especially  in  a  part  of  it 
which  was  sacred  before  it  was  shameful,  and 
to  draw  blood  from  it,  could  not  be  an  ordinary 
act,  but  was  a  sacrament  of  the  highest  efficacy, 
whatever  else  may  have  been  its  purpose. 

6 


66        The  Religion  of  Israel 

It  has  been  imagined,  too,  that  circumcision 
might  have  been  formerly  a  mutilation  inflicted 
on  prisoners  of  war,  and  that  it  was  afterwards 
explained  as  a  token  of  submission,  or  of 
consecration  to  the  Gods.  But  circumcision 
seems  never  to  have  been  regarded  as  a  mark 
of  subjection ;  and  the  story  of  the  hundred 
Philistines  whom  David  mutilated,  after  killing 
them,  cannot  be  utilised  in  support  of  this 
hypothesis.  David,  in  fact,  did  not  circumcise 
against  their  will  a  hundred  living  Philistines: 
he  brought  to  Saul  the  material  evidence  of 
his  exploit,  namely  the  slaughter  of  a  hundred 
uncircumcised.  * 

The  most  ancient  writings  already  attribute 
to  this  rite  a  capital  importance.  It  is  enough 
to  recall  the  adventure  of  Moses,  when  he  was 
attacked  by  Yahweh  himself  in  the  wilderness, 
and  delivered  by  the  intervention  of  his  wife 
Zipporah,  who,  having  circumcised  their  boy 
with  a  flint,  touched  her  uncircumcised  husband 
with  the  shred  of  flesh  taken  from  the  child, 
so  that  Moses  himself  might  have  the  appear- 
ance of  being  circumcised,  t     It  may  be  admitted 

*  1  Samuel  xviii.  27. 

f  Exod.  iv.  24,  25.  The  text  is  doubtful,  and  it  might 
read  that  the  mark  was  imprinted  on  Yahweh  himself 
by  Zipporah,  who  says  to  God,  not  to  Moses,  "A  bloody 
husband  art  thou  to  me."     See  E.  Meyer,  59. 


The  Origins  67 

willingly  that  the  Jahvist  historian,  to  whom 
we  owe  this  narrative,  has  wished  to  demon- 
strate how  in  Israel  the  circumcision  of 
children  was  substituted  for  the  earlier  custom 
of  circumcising  youths  at  the  age  of  puberty. 
The  obligation  of  the  rite  may  have  been  held 
binding  in  itself,  without  having  any  need  of 
justification,  by  the  natural  exclusion  of  an 
uncircumcised  person  from  every  relation  with 
Yahweh.  In  any  case,  the  meaning  of  this 
savage  incident  would  be  less  high.  On  this 
occasion  Yahweh  did  not  behave  as  God,  but 
as  a  ferocious  being  appeasable  by  blood. 

The  basis  of  the  equally  ancient  narrative  in 
Joshua,*  about  the  circumcision  of  the  Israelites 
after  crossing  Jordan,  enables  us  to  infer  that 
in  order  to  hold  the  land  of  Yahweh  lawfully 
the  children  of  Jacob  had  to  submit  to  a  sacred 
mutilation.  It  compels  us  also  to  suspect  that 
circumcision  was  not  practised  in  Israel  before 
the  arrival  in  Canaan,  although  it  was  customary 
with  the  Egyptians.  We  have  seen  that  the 
Jahvist  historian  takes  it  back  a  little  farther, 
to  Moses,  but  not  into  patriarchal  times. 

In  the  priestly  document  of  the  Hexateuch, 
circumcision  is  presented  with  another  explana- 
tion, as  being  the  indispensable  condition  of 
legal  purity,  and  the  sign  of  the  alliance 
*  Joshua  V.  2-9, 


68        The  Religion  of  Israel 

between  God  and  the  posterity  of  Abraham. 
The  divine  preference  appears  as  the  only 
reason  for  the  necessity  of  the  custom.  But, 
whence  the  reason  for  so  whimsical  a  choice  ? 
The  efficacy  which  the  writer  attributes  to  it, 
by  reason  of  its  divine  institution,  is  wholly  in 
the  moral  sphere,  and  does  not  come  in  any  sense 
from  the  rite  itself,  as  in  the  earlier  accounts. 
Possibly  because  he  holds  the  custom  to  be 
more  ancient  than  Moses,  or  rather  because 
Abraham  is  for  him  the  real  father  of  the 
Hebrews,  who  must  have  borne  the  sign  of 
election ;  and  so  he  attaches  the  precept  of 
circumcision  to  the  call  of  the  patriarch. 

In  reality,  circumcision  "was  known  elsewhere 
than  in  Israel,  and  was  practised  before  the 
supposed  date  of  Abraham.  It  was  habitual 
in  Egypt  from  the  earliest  antiquity,  and  it 
may  be  supposed,  with  sufficient  probability, 
to  have  been  an  old  custom  of  the  African 
tribes,  made  known  through  the  Egyptians  to 
some  of  the  western  Semites.  It  was  not  a 
Semitic  practice,  because  the  Semites  of  Mesopo- 
tamia appear  to  have  been  completely  ignorant 
of  it;  and  even  the  priestly  writer  does  not 
imagine  that  Abraham  could  have  known  it  in 
the  country  of  his  birth.  It  belongs  undoubtedly 
to  that  kind  of  trial,  often  strange  and  sanguin- 
ary, by  which  among  half -civilized  peoples  the 


The  Origins  69 

passing  from  youth  into  manhood  is  consecrated; 
and  which  initiates  a  young  man  into  the  social 
and  religious  life  of  his  tribe.  The  mutilation 
itself,  and  the  spilling  of  blood,  under  the 
conditions  in  which  they  were  carried  out 
formerly,  were  religious  symbols,  and  these 
among  savages  are  not  discriminated  from 
their  effects :  an  agreement  by  blood  expresses 
and  inaugurates  the  adult  freedom  of  a  young 
man,  and  his  incorporation  into  his  tribe.  Even 
this  meaning  need  not  be  primitive,  if  the  rite, 
as  is  hinted  by  the  foregoing  quotation  from 
Exodus,  were  anciently  a  sort  of  homage  to  the 
spirits,  so  as  to  prevent  or  avert  their  anger 
and  its  vengeance. 

When  the  organization  of  the  clan  was  re- 
placed by  a  higher  social  state,  circumcision, 
rooted  as  it  was  in  custom,  was  maintained 
while  taking  on  a  sense  more  or  less  different 
from  that  which  it  had  in  the  beginning.  It 
was  preserved  in  Egypt  among  the  priests  as 
the  symbol  of  a  rehgious  purity  from  which 
common  men  were  dispensed.  It  was  kept 
among  the  Arabs  as  a  general  custom,  and  a 
ceremony  preceding  marriage,  losing  thereby 
much  of  its  sacred  character.  Among  the 
Israelites  its  religious  significance  prevailed; 
and  circumcision,  maintained  as  an  universal 
obligation,   was   a   sign   of   initiation    into    the 


70        The  Religion  of  Israel 

national  religion.  It  was  desirable  to  assure 
the  advantages  of  this  initiation  as  early  as 
possible,  to  those  capable  of  receiving  it,  and 
thence  came  the  circumcision  of  children.  The 
use  of  sharpened  flints  for  the  operation  wit- 
nesses to  the  hoary  antiquity  of  the  custom. 
The  choice  of  the  eighth  day  after  birth  may 
have  some  relation  to  the  ancient  practice  of 
immolating  the  first-born. 

The  distinction  between  things  clean  and 
unclean,  between  states  of  purity  and  im- 
purity, w^hich  fills  so  great  a  place  in  the 
Mosaic  legislation,  belongs  to  the  same  order 
of  naturalistic  conceptions.  We  are  guilty  of 
a  foolish  anachronism  if  we  imagine  that  the 
terms  pure  and  impure  were,  in  the  beginning, 
equivalents  of  clean  and  dirty,  or  healthy  and 
unhealthy.  The  notion  of  pure  and  impure  in 
the  Bible  is  exclusively  religious  :  it  is  neither 
moral  nor  utilitarian.  If  certain  legal  com- 
mands or  prohibitions  resulted  in  good  physio- 
logical consequences,  that  was  not  the  motive 
which  decided  the  order  or  the  prohibition.  The 
meaning  is  to  be  sought  in  the  ancient  notions  of 
holiness.  Holy  things  were  those  of  which  the 
usage  was  withdrawn,  wholly  or  in  part,  from 
man,  and  reserved  to  the  divinity.  Impure 
things  were  those  which  the  divinity  abhorred, 
and  which  for  that  reason  were  not  tolerated 


The  Origins  71 

in  his  service.  Between  the  two  are  things 
common,  simply  pure  or  indifferent,  which 
might  occasionally  be  infected  by  worship  or 
impurity.  It  is  in  these  forms,  and  with  these 
general  applications,  that  notions  of  holiness, 
of  purity,  of  impurity,  appear  not  only  in  the 
religion  of  Israel,  but  in  many  other  religions. 

A  thing  impure  would  often  seem  to  be 
something  connected  with  a  foreign  or  a  lower 
religion  ;  for  instance,  to  the  worship  of  spirits, 
or  of  the  dead.  Consequently,  that  which  has 
become  impure  was  in  its  beginning  sacred,  in 
a  wider  sense,  as  a  habitation  of  spirits,  or 
a  receptacle  of  supernatural  activity.  The 
distinction  of  holy  and  impure  was  made 
afterwards,  between  things  which  were  related 
to  the  Gods  and  became  appropriated  to  their 
worship,  and  those  which  continued  more  or 
less  in  the  usage  of  spirits  or  of  magic.  The 
primitive  identity  of  holy  and  impure  is  shown 
in  that  both  are  contagious  in  the  same 
way ;  and  that  the  touching  of  holy  things 
requires  a  ceremony  of  purification,  or  if  you 
will  of  de-consecration,  similar  to  that  which  is 
required  by  the  touching  of  impure  things. 
Thus  the  same  ritual  ablutions  are  used  in  the 
two   cases. 

Why  were  certain  kinds  of  animals  held  to 
be    impure,  and  certain  conditions  of  man  and 


72        The  Religion  of  Israel 

of  woman,  and  corpses?  It  may  be  said, 
speaking  generally,  that  the  reason  was  a 
superstitious  fear,  which  counselled  a  tem- 
porary or  a  permanent  interdict  of  certain 
persons,  animals,  and  things.  A  harmful 
plant,  a  mischievous  or  repulsive  beast,  was 
mistrusted  formerly  as  the  incarnation  of  a 
dangerous  spirit;  or  even  a  certain  animal 
may  have  been  held  so  sacred  that  man  had 
not  ordinarily  a  right  to  touch  it.  Everything 
which  related  to  generation,  to  illnesses,  and  to 
death  has  been  thought  by  early  peoples  to  be 
involved  in  the  working  of  unseen  and  terrible 
forces,  contact  with  which  was  not  free  from 
danger.  Hence  have  come  the  rules  about 
sexual  relations,  the  impurities  of  man  and 
woman,  abstinence  from  blood,  conceived  as 
the  seat  of  life  and  the  containing  vessel  of 
the  spirit,  about  the  handling  of  corpses,  and 
the  treatment  of  diseases  which  were  regarded 
as  a  species  of  diabolic  possession. 

Everywhere  primitive  medicine  was  made  up 
of  exorcisms,  and  the  doctors  were  priests,  at 
least  when  they  were  sorcerers  and  wizards. 
If  the  Mosaic  regulations  about  lepers  be  read 
with  care,  it  will  be  seen  easily  that  the  end 
in  view  was  neither  the  healing  of  the 
disease,  nor  properly  speaking  the  measures  to 
be   taken   against   contagion,  but  the   state   of 


The  Origins  73 

impurity,  of  religious  incapacity,  one  might 
say  of  divine  reprobation,  in  which  the  patient 
found  himself.  If  one  ought  not  to  touch  a 
leper,  that  was  not  really  because  it  exposed 
a  man  to  the  danger  of  catching  the  disease, 
but  because  by  contact  he  shared  in  the  leper's 
impurity,  which  brought  with  it  some  of  the 
curse  involved,  and  exposed  one  to  the  action 
of  the  evil  spirit  who  was  in  the  leper.  This 
simple  and  popular  conception  of  illness  is  to 
be  found  even  in  the  Gospels,  in  which  the 
space  occupied  by  stories  of  possession  is 
notorious. 

The  most  recent  Biblical  texts  set  forth 
sacrifices  as  the  natural  and  indispensable  means 
of  getting  into  communication  with  the  deity ; 
whether  to  pay  him  homage  or  thanks,  or  to 
win  his  protection,  or  to  expiate  faults  com- 
mitted against  him  and  to  appease  his  anger. 
It  has  been  disputed  how  sacrifice  came  for- 
merly to  be  thought  so  necessary,  and  so 
entirely  natural.  Admitting  that  religion  had 
its  sole  origin  in  fear,  many  have  thought  that 
sacrifice  was  at  first  only  a  childish  expedient 
to  calm  or  forestall  the  rage  of  the  higher 
powers,  by  offering  presents  which  were 
thought  pleasing  to  them.  Nevertheless,  since 
the  religious  feeling  is  not  made  up  solely  of 
fear,  but  of  confidence  also,  and  since  religion 


74        The  Religion  of  Israel 

is  not  merely  a  guarantee  against  the  divine, 
but  is  also  a  means  of  appropriating  it,  so 
sacrifice  was  not  only  a  simple  way  of  buy- 
ing from  the  Gods  a  little  security,  but  the 
notion  of  communion  was  associated  with  the 
notion  of  offering.  The  supernatural  efficacy 
of  sacrifice  did  not  come  solely  because  it  was 
a  gift  accepted  by  the  deity,  but  because  it 
was  also  the  means  of  forming,  carrying  on, 
strengthening,  and  renewing  the  active  tie 
which  united  the  God  to  his  worshippers.  The 
most  ancient  sacrifices  were  not  meals  served 
up  to  the  God  alone  ;  they  were  banquets  in 
which  the  God  had,  as  was  right,  the  better 
part,  but  to  which  he  admitted  his  servitors 
with  himself :  it  was  not  only  homage  that  was 
rendered  him,  but  there  was  an  efficacious 
sacrament  of  his  alliance  with  his  followers. 

It  is  true  that  in  historical  times,  after 
Israel  was  established  in  Canaan,  and  Yahweh 
had  become  Lord  of  the  country,  the  whole 
mass  of  sacrifices  and  ritual  offerings  was 
conceived  as  a  tribute  pertaining  naturally  to 
the  deity.  But  the  usual  participation  of  the 
offerer,  the  prescribed  conditions  for  being 
admitted  to  the  sacred  feast,  the  character  of 
holiness  that  was  attached  to  the  things 
offered,  and  especially  to  the  sacrificial  victims, 
all    show   that    the   feeling   of    a   divine   com- 


The  Origins^  75 

munion  still  survived.  St.  Paul  was  arguing 
entirely  according  to  ancient  notions  when 
he  wrote  *  "  The  bread  which  we  break  is  it 
not  a  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  seeing 
that  we  who  are  many  are  one  body,  one 
bread,  for  we  all  partake  of  the  one  bread. 
Behold  Israel  after  the  flesh:  have  not  they 
which  eat  the  sacrifices  communion  with  the 
altar?"  The  Apostle  ought  to  have  said: 
"  mess-mates  of  God  "  ;  respect  for  the  Eternal 
attenuated  here  the  wording  of  the  prin- 
ciple on  which  the  whole  argument  rests. 
"  But  I  say  that  the  things  which  the  Gentiles 
sacrifice,  they  sacrifice  to  devils,  and  not  to 
God:  and  I  would  not  that  ye  should  have 
communion  with  devils.  Ye  cannot  drink  the 
cup  of  the  Lord  and  the  cup  of  devils.  Ye 
cannot  partake  of  the  table  of  the  Lord,  and 
of   the   table   of   devils." 

Amos  declares  that  the  Israelites  in  the 
wilderness  offered  no  sacrifices  to  Yahweh.f 
But  his  assertion  is  contradicted  by  the  most 
ancient  legends,  and  by  all  the  probabilities  : 
it  does  prove,  however,  that  there  was  no 
knowledge  in  the  time  of  this  prophet  of  any 
Mosaic  legislation  about  sacrifices  ;  and  it 
means  that  the  ritual  of  sacrifices,  in  the  eighth 
century  before  our  era,  was,  for  the  most  part, 
^  1  Cor.  X.  16-21.  t  Amos  v.  29. 


76        The  Religion  of  Israel 

that  which  Israel  had  borrowed  from  the 
Canaanites,  not  that  which  its  nomadic  an- 
cestors had  practised  formerly.  Certain  narra- 
tives appear  to  suggest  the  vague  memory  of  an 
evolution.  Thus  the  legend  connected  w^ith 
the  altar  of  Yahweh-Shalom  at  Ophrah 
may  be  meant  to  explain  the  substitution  of 
holocausts  and  offerings  by  fire  for  the  presen- 
tation of  food :  Gideon  had  made  ready  a  kid, 
and  was  bringing  it  all  prepared  for  the  God, 
with  unleavened  bread ;  but  Yahweh  made 
him  put  everything  on  the  sacred  stone,  then 
he  touched  the  food  with  his  staffj  and  im- 
mediately flame  burst  out  of  the  rock,  the 
meats  disappeared,  and  Yahweh  with  them.* 
It  might  be  argued  from  this  that  the  old 
custom  of  the  place  authorized  the  presenting  of 
cooked  food  as  an  offering,  but  that  the  Israelite 
custom  substituted  for  such  offerings  the  burn- 
ing of  victims,  or  of  the  portions  of  victims 
which  were  set  apart  for  Yahweh.  But  this 
substitution  was  not  peculiar  to  Israel ;  and 
there  remained  in  the  worship  of  Yahweh  some 
traces  of  primitive  custom,  since  the  daily 
offering  of  the  shew-bread  was  continued  until 
the  destruction  of  the  second  temple. 

We  may  infer  that  the  method  of  conveying 
to   the    God   his  portion   would  vary   with   the 

'•-  Judges  vi.   17-24. 


The  Origins  77 

opinions  which  were  current  about  the  deity. 
The  blood,  as  a  vital  fluid,  was  from  very  early 
times  the  food  reserved  exclusively  for  the  divine 
spirit,  even  when  he  lived  in  stones,  in  trees,  or  in 
other  objects.  Besides,  the  blood  was  specially 
sacred  as  the  seat  of  life,  and  very  soon  there 
was  a  scruple  about  taking  it.  The  other  parts 
of  the  victim  which  were  judged,  for  analogous 
reasons,  to  be  particularly  sacred  and  so  fit 
for  the  God,  were  burnt  so  as  to  be  offered 
him  in  the  smoke.  The  Biblical  metaphor 
about  sacrifices  of  a  pleasing  smell  were  then 
understood  literally.  It  was  after  having 
sniffed  the  fumes  of  the  sacrifice  offered  by 
Noah  that  Yahweh  resolved  not  to  cause 
another  flood.  There  would  have  been  no 
reason  to  consider  the  sacrifices  as  an  offering, 
if  it  had  not  been  imagined  that  they  brought 
some  advantage  to  the  deity ;  and  the  part 
which  the  worshippers  took  to  nourish  them- 
selves with  when  a  victim  was  sacrificed  would 
have  been  meaningless  if  it  were  not  bound 
to  procure  them  the  advantages  of  a  closer 
union   with  their   God. 

The  difficulty  of  tracing  back  the  notions 
which  produced  the  custom  of  sacrifices  is 
caused  by  the  complexity  of  the  practice 
itself ;  for  all  the  elements  in  it  have  neither 
the   same   origin,  nor  have  been  derived  from 


yS        The  Religion  of  Israel 

the   same   conceptions.      It   is   not  easy  to  say 
whether  the  notion   of   sacrifice  as  an  offering 
preceded  or  followed  the  notion  of  sacrifice  as 
a    communion ;   or    whether,    indeed,    the   two 
notions   are  not    equally   old,    though    perhaps 
they  may  have  originated  formerly  in  different 
circumstances,    or    even   possibly   in   the   same. 
Nomadic  Israel   must  have  practised  the  sacri- 
fice  of  communion  before  learning  the  system 
of  offerings   which  it   got    to  know  in  Canaan. 
The  sacrifice  of  communion,   too,    is  congruous 
with  the  life  of  a  tribe.     The  worship  of  spirits 
leads  more  naturally  to  simple  offerings.     And 
certain   sacrifices   would   seem  to  have  no  con- 
nexion with  the  notion  either  of  offering  or  of 
communion.      There   are    some   which    do    not 
reflect   the   usual  intercourse  of  a  family  with 
its    divine    father,    or    of    a    people     with    its 
heavenly  master  and  guardian. 

Human  sacrifices  were  not  unknown  to 
ancient  Israel.  The  legend  of  Jephthah,  which 
must  be  the  mythical  explanation  of  some  local 
worship,  does  not  fail  to  show  that  the  im- 
molation of  a  human  victim  was  allowed,  at 
least  in  exceptionally  grave  circumstances. 
The  legend  dealing  with  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac 
is  not  less  significant;  for  it  is  evidently 
meant  to  show  that  Yahweh  deigned  to  be 
satisfied    with  animals,   and   that  he    did    not 


The  Origins  79 

insist  upon  the  children  of  his  worshippers, 
though  he  had  the  right  to  exact  them.  These 
notions  and  prepossessions  imply  an  earlier  and 
regular  practice  of  human  sacrifices,  especially 
in  the  sanctuary  of  El  Mor4  at  Shechem,* 
whither  Elohim  had  led  Abraham  for  the 
sacrifice  of  his  son.  The  sanctuary,  in  fact,  was 
Canaanite ;  but  the  legend  is  not  very  old  and 
deals  with  a  worship  practised  by  Israel  in 
imitation  of  Canaan.  This  worship  is  reproved, 
in  addition,  with  singular  moderation ;  and  we 
shall  see  farther  on  that  the  sacrifice  of  the 
first-born  may  have  been  practised  in  Israel 
for  longer  and  far  more  generally  than  is 
usually  admitted.  Human  sacrifice  was  the 
rule  in  Canaan  at  the  foundation  of  towns,  and 
even  of  houses.  It  is  hardly  probable  that  the 
Israelites  never  followed  this  example.  When 
Hiel  the  Bethelite  rebuilt  Jericho  in  the  days  of 
Ahab,  he  sacrificed  his  eldest  son  at  its  founda- 
tion, and  his  youngest  when  he  set  up  the  gates,  f 
In  the  affair  of  Jephthah  it  may  be  said  that 

*  The  reading  Moriah,  in  Genesis  xxii.  2  is  faulty.  One 
should  read,  probably,  "in  the  land  of  the  Amorites." 
It  was  a  question  of  consecrating  the  holy  place  of 
Shechem,  and  the  text  seems  to  have  been  changed 
because  of  the  Samaritans. 

f  Kings  xvi.  34.  The  Biblical  tradition  wishes  to 
imply  that  these  youths  died  through  a  curse  uttered 
formerly   by   Joshua   (vi.   26)  ;  but  the  original  meaning 


8o        The   Religion  of  Israel 

the  human  sacrifice  was  thought  to  be  an 
unusual  method  of  propitiation.  But  why  had 
human  blood  so  high  an  efficacy?  As  to  sacri- 
fices of  foundation,  when  the  victim  was  laid 
under  the  building,  we  are  led  naturally  to 
suppose  that  they  were  connected  rather  with 
the  spirits  of  the  place  than  with  a  deity. 
Nevertheless  the  prevalence  of  the  custom  at 
a  time  and  with  surroundings  in  which  the 
worship  of  the  Gods  had  long  flourished  does  not 
allow  us  to  doubt  that  the  practice  was  adapted 
to  their  service  ;  just  as  it  is  certain  that  the 
sacrifice  of  the  first-born  was  offered  to  Yahweh 
in  the  decline  of  the  Davidic  monarchy.  Incon- 
testably,  too,  the  Gods  liked  blood. 

The  rite  of  the  Passover  is  older  than  the 
settlement  of  Israel  in  Canaan :  older,  even, 
than  the  worship  of  Yahweh  by  Israel.  It  was 
celebrated  by  night ;  and  the  blood  on  the  door- 
posts was  for  the  spirit  who  went  his  rounds  in 
the  darkness,  as  he  attacked  men  under  cover 
of  the  gloom.  The  liking  of  the  Semitic  Gods, 
and  even  of  Yahweh,  for  blood,  was  it  not 
a  legacy  to  them  from  the  spirits?  The  tahu 
of  blood   supposes   a  pre-existing  custom.    The 

cannot  be  doubted.  After  the  recent  excavations  at 
Taanech,  for  instance,  it  may  be  asserted  that  the  body 
of  the  elder  son  was  put  under  the  foundation-stone,  and 
of  the  younger  below  the  gates. 


The  Origins  8i 


spirits  would  not  have  loved  blood  if  men  them- 
selves had  not  begun  by  having  a  taste  for  it. 
The  conclusion  that  there  was  both  life  and 
a  spirit  in  the  blood  could  not  be  wholly  primi- 
tive ;  it  is  parallel  to  the  deyelopment  of 
animism  ;  it  may  have  caused  the  prohibition, 
and  have  contributed  afterwards  to  its  obser- 
vance. The  importance  of  bloody  rites  may 
have  been  conceived  later  ;  the  offering  of 
blood,  under  certain  fixed  conditions,  which 
made  it  a  ceremony  of  consecration,  bringing 
the  maximum  of  divine  efficacy  of  which  any 
given  matter  was  capable,  would  lead  on  to 
its  being  considered  the  most  solemn  and  im- 
portant of  all  religious  acts. 

But  it  is  not  enough  to  say  that  blood  became 
pleasing  to  the  Gods  because  formerly  it  was 
thought  grateful  to  the  spirits ;  a  ceremony 
with  blood  seems  to  have  had  in  itself  a  con- 
straining power  over  the  will  of  the  Gods,  since 
magic  had  probably  used  blood  in  its  most 
potent  charms.  The  Bible  quotes  the  case  of 
a  human  sacrifice  made  by  Mesha,  King  of 
Moab :  this  king,  besieged  by  the  kings  o  f 
Israel,  Judah,  and  Edom,  and  reduced  to  the 
last  extremity,  offered  his  son  as  a  burnt  offer 
ing  on  the  city  wall.  "  And  there  was  great 
wrath  against  Israel,"  *  says  the  historian  of 
*  2  Kings  iii.  27. 
7 


82        The  Religion  of  Israel 

the  Kings,  who  hardly  knows  to  what  influence 
to  attribute  the  panic  of  the  besiegers,  but  who 
does  not  doubt  that  the  sacrifice  of  Mesha  let 
loose  against  his  enemies  a  supernatural  force 
which  put  them  to  flight.  Mesha  certainly- 
offered  the  sacrifice  to  his  God,  Chemosh  ;  but 
it  was  not  done  to  present  him  with  his  son  as 
an  offering  or  as  food,  it  was  to  determine  the 
volition  of  the  God,  to  force  the  hand  of  destiny. 

Perhaps  in  these  extraordinary  cases  the 
original  notion  that  was  attached  to  bloody 
sacrifices  reappears  ;  and  thus  perhaps  human 
sacrifices  may  be  explained,  of  which  the  origin 
is  not  necessarily  later  than  that  of  animal 
sacrifices.  On  one  side  human  sacrifices  may 
be  connected  historically  with  the  worship  of 
the  dead,  to  whom  it  was  desirable  to  give 
companions  and  servants  ;  but  these  butcheries 
were  not  as  yet  strictly  speaking  sacrifices, 
and  a  reason  for  the  special  efiicacy  attri- 
buted to  the  ritual  offering  of  men  and  animals 
must  be  sought  elsewhere. 

The  conditions  in  which  the  sacrificers  lived 
must  have  influenced  the  choice  of  victims. 
That  choice  was  determined  also  by  special 
considerations,  such  as  the  sacred  character 
attributed  to  particular  kinds  of  animals. 
Any  victim,  even  a  human  one,  was  suitable 
for  magic   purposes   and    the    nourishment    of 


The  Origins  83 

spirits.  In  the  worship  of  a  tribe  organized 
under  the  protection  of  a  God,  the  domestic 
animals  serve  for  the  sacrifice  of  communion. 
Finally  every  rite,  the  grossest,  the  most  absurd 
and  cruel,  which  had  none  of  these  qualities 
for  those  who  first  adopted  and  handed  it  on, 
maintained  itself  when  once  established,  and 
was  perpetuated  by  the  influence  of  tradition  ; 
it  changed  its  significance  according  to  need, 
but  it  lived  on,  and  was  held  to  be  a  necessary 
element  in  the  social  fabric  or  an  essential 
ingredient  of  religion.  This  power  of  religious 
tradition  was  needed  to  make  the  sacrifice  of 
a  living  being,  which  was  a  magic  rite  origi- 
nally and  in  its  first  conception,  a  regular  means 
of  divine  communion  and  propitiation ;  and  to 
continue  it  in  the  religion  of  Israel,  even 
when  its  notions  of  God  had  made  such 
practices  superfluous,  and  might  seem  rather 
to  exclude  them ;  and  to  propel,  the  theory 
at  least,  right  into  the  Christian  theology, 
which  has  contrived  to  find  in  the  death  of 
the  Christ  an  offering  upon  which  the  whole 
scheme  of  salvation  depends. 

The  Sabbath  was  an  application  of  that 
religious  interdict  which  we  have  seen  exer- 
cised in  regard  to  things  and  persons.  In 
Babylon,  the  seventh,  fourteenth,  twenty-first, 
and    twenty-eighth    of    each    month,   intervals 


84        The  Religion  of  Israel 

corresponding  to  the  phases  of  the  moon,  were 
days  either  holy  or  nefasti,  according  to  the 
point  of  view  from  which  the  prohibition  of 
certain  works  or  occupations  was  looked  at. 
As  there  are  certain  holy  places  into  which 
access  is  not  allowed  to  ordinary  mortals,  or 
only  under  certain  fixed  conditions,  so  there 
are  also  holy  seasons,  which  are  violated  by 
various  human  acts.  In  its  origin,  the  mean- 
ing of  the  sabbath  among  the  Israelites  was 
not  different.  To  sanctify  the  sabbath  was  to 
respect  the  prohibition  in  which  that  day  was 
involved,  by  abstaining  from  work  ;  by  work- 
ing, one  profaned,  or  soiled,  or  violated  the 
sabbath  day.  The  sabbath  was  holy  in  itself, 
through  its  divine  institution,  as  the  precincts 
of  a  shrine  are  holy  through  their  appropria- 
tion by  the  God  who  chooses  to  dwell  in  them. 
The  obligation  to  observe  it  is  not  based  upon 
humanitarian  or  moral  reasons,  but  on  a 
religious  motive  after  the  manner  of  antiquity. 
It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  the  sabbath 
existed  before  the  explanation  which  is  given 
of  it  in  the  Biblical  story  of  the  creation.  But, 
in  the  story  itself  the  consecration  of  the 
sabbath  is  not  an  appropriation  of  that  day 
to  works  of  piety,  it  is  the  tabu  which  the 
Creator  is  held  to  have  put  on  that  day,  which 
henceforth  belonged   to    him    exclusively,  and 


The  Origins  85 

on  which  human  activities  were  offensive  to 
him.  By  abstaining  himself  from  work  on 
that  day,  God  gave  to  man  an  example  of  the 
abstention  which  he  ought  to  observe.  It  was 
the  speculative  theologian  annexing  for  the 
benefit  of  monotheism  the  traditional  notions 
of  a  consecrated  season. 

Apparently,  the  observance  of  the  sabbath 
varied  in  the  progress  of  the  centuries.  Many 
think  now  that,  under  that  name,  the  full  moon 
was  celebrated  formerly ;  and  that  the  obser- 
vance of  a  weekly  sabbath,  with  a  division  of 
the  year  into  weeks  which  do  not  correspond 
with  the  lunar  months,  is  not  very  ancient. 
This  division  must  have  been  borrowed  by  the 
Israelites,  probably  from  Chaldaea ;  but  this 
latter  hypothesis  is  not  otherwise  established. 
By  degrees,  as  humanitarian  sentiment  was 
joined  to  the  religious  notion,  men  began  to 
wish  that  slaves,  hirelings,  and  even  beasts  of 
burthen  should  be  released  from  work.  After 
the  exile,  though  the  primitive  character  of 
the  institution  was  not  wholly  obliterated,  yet, 
through  the  meetings  of  the  synagogue,  the 
sabbath  took  a  leading  place  in  Jewish  life, 
and  acquired  a  higher  kind  of  sanctification  by 
religious  instruction  and  community  in  prayer. 

The  observance  of  the  new  moon,  which 
was   unimportant  in  the  Law,  was   developed 


86        The  Religion  of  Israel 

in  the  Israelite  worship  down  to  the  period 
of  the  exile.  It  was  the  feast  of  the  opening 
month ;  and  its  object  formerly  was  to  welcome 
the  reappearance  of  the  moon.  It  goes  back 
without  any  doubt  to  the  nomadic  time,  and  it 
was  stamped  with  a  naturalistic  character 
which  gradually  faded  out  of  it. 

The  feasts  which  are  far  better  known,  the 
Passover,  Pentecost,  Tents  or  Tabernacles,  be- 
came solemn  commemorations  of  the  exodus, 
of  the  giving  of  the  Law,  of  the  sojourn  in 
the  wilderness,  though  at  first  they  had 
other  meanings.  The  feast  of  the  Passover 
had  acquired  its  traditional  interpretation 
before  the  captivity  ;  but  the  historical  explana- 
tion of  the  two  other  feasts  is  less  ancient. 
The  ritual  of  all  three  shows  that  they  were 
connected  originally  with  the  progression  of 
the  seasons  and  of  the  crops,  and  with  the 
increase  of  cattle.  Thus  the  Passover  is  the 
feast  of  spring  and  of  renewal ;  Pentecost,  the 
festival  of  harvest ;  the  feast  of  Tabernacles 
celebrates  the  gathering  in  of  fruit  and  the 
vintage.     The  spiritual  meaning  came  later. 

The  sacrifice  of  the  paschal  lamb,  a  rite  which 
contrasts  so  frankly  with  the  ordinary  ways  of 
sacrifice  in  the  levitical  code,  is  a  family  sacrifice 
for  the  new  year.  The  victim,  a  lamb  or  a  kid 
of  the  previous  spring,  would  be  just  fit  to  in- 


The  Origins  87 

augurate  the  new  year.  The  blood  on  the 
door  indicated  then  the  consecration  of  the 
house  and  all  the  family,  of  goods  and  persons. 
The  Law  forbad  eating  the  lamb  uncooked,  or 
breaking  its  bones,  while  it  ordained  that  it 
should  be  eaten  wholly  at  one  meal :  possibly 
because  in  an  earlier  time  the  victim  was  eaten 
raw, with  its  bones  pounded.  From  all  its  details, 
this  practice  must  have  gone  back  to  the  time 
when  the  forefathers  of  Israel  lived  as  nomadic 
shepherds.  It  was  a  sacrifice  of  communion, 
not  connected  specially  with  the  worship  of 
Yahweh,  but  which  may  in  primitive  times 
have  been  connected  with  the  worship  of  spirits, 
but  not  necessarily  derived  from  toteniisvi, 
with  which  there  has  sometimes  been  an  effort 
to  connect  it. 

The  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread,  which  lasted 
seven  days,  was  formerly  distinct  from  the 
sacrifice  of  the  paschal  lamb.  It  belonged,  like 
Pentecost  and  Tabernacles,  to  the  series  of 
agricultural  feasts  which  Israel  annexed  from 
the  Canaanites.  It  was  the  feast  of  the  new 
bread,  and  consecrated  the  opening  of  harvest, 
as  Pentecost  did  the  close.  The  usage  of  bread 
without  leaven,  the  only  sort  allowed  by  the 
Mosaic  liturgy,  is  explained  in  the  old  texts 
by  an  accidental  circumstance  in  the  exodus 
from  Egypt :    the   flour  being  carried   away  in 


88        The  Religion  of  Israel 

the  kneading-troughs  without  having  had  time 
to  ferment.*  But  a  general  principle  excluded 
all  fermented  products  from  the  sacrifices,  as 
being  corrupt,  and  repugnant  to  the  deity. 
With  regard  to  bread  specially,  the  Bible  leads 
us  to  think  that  anciently  all  bread  was  made 
unfermented,  and  baked  in  the  ashes :  religious 
custom,  which  is  essentially  conservative,  re- 
tained as  a  sacred  rite  what  had  been  the 
ordinary  custom. 

In  Hebrew,  the  word  which  means  "  feast " 
(chag)  has  etymologically  the  signification 
"dance";  the  feast  being  designated  by  the 
most  prominent  thing  in  the  primitive 
solemnity,  namely  the  sacred  dance,  the 
rhythmic  march,  accompanied  by  cries  or  chants, 
and  executed  round  the  altar  or  the  place  of 
sacrifice,  while  the  victims  were  being  pre- 
pared and  killed.  Men  still  danced  round  the 
ark  at  Shiloh ;  and  David,  too,  danced  before 
the  ark  when  he  brought  it  up  to  Zion.f  The 
sacrificial  meal  crowned  the  festival. 

To  understand  the  real  meaning  of  the  ark, 
which  is  described  as  "  of  the  covenant,"  the 
strange  narrative  of  Exodus  must  be  read ;  | 
in  which  Yahweh,  on  Horeb,  made  known   to 

*  Exod.  xii.  34. 

t  Judges  xxi.  19-21  ;  2  Sam.  vii.  12-14. 

I  Exod.  xxxiii.  12-17. 


The  Origins  8g 


Moses  that   he   did   not  will   to   quit  the   holy 
mountain  in  order  to  accompany  Israel.     Moses 
declares     that    he    cannot    be    responsible    for 
leading    the   people   unless   Yahweh   agrees    to 
go  with  him.     And  Yahweh  yields  to  the  wish 
of  Moses.      The  "  name "  of  Yahweh  was   over 
the  ark,  meaning  his  actual  presence  in  person, 
although     invisible ;    and,    as     "  the     angel     of 
Yahweh,"  who,  in  the  old  texts,  signifies  usually 
the   visible   apparition  of   God,    it   amounts,  in 
view  of  the  sojourn  of  Yahweh  on  Sinai,  to  a 
kind  of  bi-location,  which  must  not  be  criticised 
from   the  point   of  view  of   a  more   developed 
theology.     The  abiding  presence  of  Yahweh  in 
the    ark   was    not    conceived    differently    from 
that  of  the  pagan  deities  in  their  statues,  and 
in  the  sacred   boats  or  arks  which   held   their 
images.      This    presence   may   even    have   been 
attached    to   two    stones    which,   according    to 
the  old  stories,  were  the  only  objects  contained 
in   the   ark :    if   not,  it   must   have   inhered   in 
the  chest  itself.     The  sacred  stones  were  after- 
wards  transformed    by   legend    into    tables   of 
the   Law.       The    atmosphere    of    dread    which 
encompassed   the  ark  is  a  notion   that   is  still 
pagan,    by    which    are    exhibited     the     almost 
material    localisation    of    the    divine    presence, 
and     the    semi-physical     nature     of    Yahweh's 
holiness,  which  are  outraged  by  a  human  look 


go        The  Religion  of  Israel 

or  even  touch  on  the  coffer  of  the  God.  When 
the  ark  was  carried  about  it  was  thought  that 
Yahweh  was  carried  too.  The  ark  was  taken 
into  battle  to  ensure  the  direct  protection  of 
the  God  of  Israel. 

Such  campaigns  were  not  always  fortunate. 
It  is  recorded  that  Yahweh  was  once  taken 
by  the  Philistines,  but  that  he  did  so  much 
mischief  to  Dagon,  the  God  of  Ashdod,  in  the 
temple  where  he  had  been  put,  and  afflicted 
the  Philistines  with  so  many  plagues,  that  they 
were  obliged  to  send  him  back.*  The  ark  thus 
returned,  and  after  diverse  wanderings,  allowed 
itself  to  be  brought  to  Jerusalem  by  David, 
and  was  afterwards  set  up  in  Solomon's  temple. 
After  that  time  all  trace  of  it  is  lost ;  and  we  do 
not  know  whether  it  perished  with  the  temple 
in  586,  or  whether  it  had  vanished  earlier. 

It  is  doubtful  whether  the  ark  had  accom- 
panied the  Israelites  from  the  desert.  It  is  a 
piece  of  sacred  furniture  which  does  not  agree 
altogether  with  the  worship  of  nomads.  The 
tradition  which  connects  Moses  with  the  holy 
place  of  Kadesh  seems  to  ignore  the  ark,  and 
to  recognise  only  a  tent  with  an  oracle  of 
Yahweh,  which  possibly  was  the  magic  rod, 
but  more  probably  the  famous  oracle  of  the 
lots,  the  ephod  with  the  urim  and  thuinmiTn, 
*  1  Saui.  iv.-vii.  1. 


The  Origins  gi 

which  Moses  made  speak.  It  has  been  thought 
that  the  ark  was  the  palladium  of  the  tribes 
of  Joseph,  and  that  it  may  have  belonged 
formerly  to  a  Canaanite  God.  An  ark  must 
have  existed  at  Shechem,  to  which  it  is  said 
Joseph's  bones  were  carried  out  of  Egypt.* 
This  ark  never,  probably,  contained  bones,  and 
it  is  not  more  certain  that  it  came  from 
Egypt ;  but  if  it  belonged  to  a  Canaanite  God 
of  vegetation,  who  died  and  rose  every  year, 
like  Adonis,  it  might  be  taken  for  both  the 
dwelling  and  the  coffin  of  the  God.  May  it 
not  have  been  the  dwelling-place  of  the  pro- 
tector of  Shechem,  El-  or  Baal-Berith,  the  God 
of  the  covenant ;  and  may  it  not  have  been 
attributed  to  Yahweh  when  the  God  of  Shechem 
was  identified  with  the  God  of  Israel,  and 
then  moved  to  Shiloh?  However,  it  always 
appeared  formerly  as  a  veritable  fetish,  as 
much  venerated  and  feared  as  a  divine  image. 
A  point  less  commonly  noticed  than  the 
foregoing,  and  which  brings  the  ancient  religion 
of  Israel  very  near  to  the  primitive  worships, 
and  even  to  magic,  is  the  power  attributed  to 
certain  formulae.  The  blessing  or  the  curse  of 
certain  persons,  and  in  certain  conditions,  are 
conceived  as  dooms  of  fate  which  no  power 
divine  or  human  can  change.  When  Isaac 
*  Gen.  1.  26  ;  Josh.  xxiv.  32. 


92        The   Religion  of  Israel 

blessed  Jacob,  thinking  to  bless  Esau,  he  could 
not  take  back  his  words,  or  one  might  say  the 
happy  fortunes  which  he  had  bestowed  errone- 
ously on  his  second  son ;  and  he  does  not 
dream  of  retracting  them,  nor  of  praying 
Yahweh  to  revoke  a  grant  which  to  us  would 
have  been  invalidated  by  the  fraud.  He  has 
no  escape  but  in  a  secondary  blessing,  which 
only  gives  to  the  hapless  Esau  something  that 
is  not  excluded  by  the  privileges  given  to  the 
fortunate  Jacob.*  The  curse  of  Noah  weighs 
for  evermore  on  Canaan,  f  When  Balaam  sets 
out  to  curse  Israel,  Yahweh  is  compelled  to 
hurry  before  him,  to  stop  him  on  the  way,  and 
to  put  words  of  blessing  into  the  mouth  of 
the  oracular  wizard.  |  For  the  curse  once 
uttered,  Yahweh  himself  could  not  avert  the 
consequences.  It  is  the  magic  power  of  a 
sacred  incantation  which  thus  passes  into  the 
words  of  fathers  or  the  oracles  of  prophets, 
and  we  may  add  into  the  judgments  of  priests 
and  chiefs,  when  they  pronounce  grave  sen- 
tences and  utter  laws.  The  word  is  thus  a 
supernatural  power.  Something  divine  works 
in  its  formulae.  It  disposes  of  things  and  of 
men ;  and  if  things  be  sometimes  refractory, 
men  at  least  obey  their  own  commanding  voice. 

Gen.  xxvii.  1-40.  f  Gen.  ix.  25. 

+  Numb.  xxii.  2-35. 


THE  OLD  JAHVISM 


CHAPTER  III 

THE   OLD  JAHVISM 

NOTHING  is  more  dubious  than  the  chrono- 
logy   of    Israel  before   the    time   of    the 
Kings.     The  accession  of  David  may  be  placed 
about  the  year  1000  B.C.    The  reign  of  that  prince 
marks    the  finishing    of  the    conquest,  and  the 
establishment  of  an  Israelitish  nation;  but  we 
do  not  know  how  to  make  any  probable  esti- 
mate of   the  time  which  had  elapsed  since  the 
tribes  first  invaded  Canaan.     According  to  the 
Assyrian  and  Egyptian  evidence  already  men- 
tioned, it  is  possible  those  invasions  had  begun 
about  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century.     The 
stories  in  Judges,   which  have  some   historical 
consistency,  seem  to  refer  to   the   later  period 
of    those    obscure    times    rather    than    to    the 
earlier.     Moses   would    have   appeared    at    the 
opening   of   that  period   as   a   somewhat    hazy 
figure,   but   the   foundation   of    Jahvism   is   in- 
separable from   his  name.     The  assimilation  of 

95 


96        The  Religion  of  Israel 

the  Canaanite  religions  to  the  worship  of 
Yahweh  is  rather  indicated  than  formally  at- 
tested, but  it  was  the  natural  and  inevitable 
sequel  to  the  conquest.  From  the  tenth  century 
to  the  middle  of  the  eighth  there  was  a  national 
worship,  and  only  some  few  traits  foretold  the 
evolution  which  was  to  transform  it  into  a 
monotheism  with  universalistic  sympathies. 

§  1 

The  God  of  Israel  had  a  name,  just  like  the 
God  of  Moab  and  the  God  of  Ammon.  In  fact 
he  could  not  do  without  one,  and  he  called 
himself  Yahweh.*  It  is  not  known  where  he 
got  this  name.  According  to  all  probability  it 
existed  before  Moses.  It  may  be  that  Yahweh 
was  the  God  of  Sinai ;  the  God,  that  is,  of 
various  tribes  who  lived  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  the  sacred  mountain  ;  the  tribe,  for  example 
of  the  Kenites  or  of  Cain,  with  which  an  old 
tradition  connects  Moses,  before  he  led  the 
Israelites  out  of  Egypt.  Perhaps  Yahweh 
was  the  particular  God  of  the  Israelite  clan, 
whence  Moses  issued ;  and  his  name  may  have 
been  one  of  the  divine  titles  which  the  ancestors 
of  the  Hebrews  had  brought  from  their  original 

*  It  is  no  doubt  superfluous  to  remind  the  reader  that 
the  name  Jehovah  is  a  barbarism,  which  has  not  even 
the  privileges  of  antiquity. 


The  Old  Jahvism  97 

country,  or  from  one  of  the  lands  through 
which  they  had  wandered.  These  two  hypo- 
theses are  not  incompatibles.  The  worship  of 
Yahweh  may  have  started  in  the  north-west 
region  of  Arabia,  beyond  Idumsea ;  and  it  may 
have  been  brought  to  the  sanctuary  of  Kadesh, 
its  second  country,  by  tribes  who  had  lived  for 
some  time  in  the  land  of  Midian  ;  among  others, 
the  tribe  of  Levi,  to  which  Moses  belonged, 
and  which  seems  for  many  years  to  have 
gravitated  round  the  district  of  Kadesh.  Moses 
would  not  have  been  able  to  rally  the  tribes 
under  the  protection  of  Yahweh  if  the  name 
of  this  God  had  been  unknown  to  them  all ; 
and  it  would  appear  quite  certain  that  Yahweh 
was  not,  before  Moses,  the  joint  deity  of  the 
tribes  who  afterwards  worshipped  him.  No  one 
has  succeeded  in  proving  that  the  name  was 
either  of  Canaanite,  or  of  Egyptian,  or  of 
Assyrian  derivation. 

The  etymology  given  in  the  Bible  is  less 
ancient  than  the  name  itself,  of  which  the  primi- 
tive meaning  is  very  doubtful  :  it  is  in  reality 
nothing  but  a  jingle  of  words,  like  several  others 
in  the  old  sources  of  the  Pentateuch ;  and  it 
does  not  contain  that  metaphysical  depth  which 
has  been  read  into  it  since.  According  to  the 
Elohistic  source,  Moses  himself  did  not  know 
the   name  of  the   God  who    was   sending    him 

8 


98        The  Religion  of  Israel 

into  Egypt  to  deliver  his  brethren.  "And 
Moses  said  unto  God,  Behold,  when  I  come 
unto  the  children  of  Israel,  and  shall  say  unto 
them.  The  God  of  your  fathers  hath  sent  me 
unto  you ;  and  they  shall  say  to  me.  What  is 
his  name?  what  shall  I  say  unto  them?  And 
God  said  unto  Moses,  I  AM  THAT  I  AM  :  and 
he  said.  Thus  shalt  thou  say  unto  the  children 
of  Israel,  I  AM  hath  sent  me  unto  you.  .  .  . 
this  is  my  name  for  ever,  and  this  is  my 
memorial  unto  all  generations."  Yahweh  gives 
his  answer  while  withholding  it.  He  says, 
further,  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  knowing 
his  name  ;  and  the  reason  for  withholding  it 
is  the  very  puissance  and  sanctity  of  that  con- 
secrated name,  which  ought  not  to  be  handed 
over  to  men  to  be  used  at  their  caprice.  But 
since,  after  all,  a  name  is  indispensable,  the  God 
playing  upon  the  assonance  of  the  name 
Yahweh  with  the  word  ehie,  I  AM,  which  he 
had  just  used  when  he  declared  I  AM  THAT  I 
AM,  said  that  Moses  to  indicate  the  deity  who 
was  sending  him  should  employ  the  phrase  just 
uttered,  by  using  its  equivalent  Yahweh.*     This 

'=  Exod.  iii.  13-1.5.  The  reply  "  I  AM  hath  sent  me"  is 
obscure  and  inaccurate.  For  Yahweh  means  "  It  is,"  not 
"I  am,"  if  the  etymology  be  admissible  at  all.  It  is 
possible  that  ehie  has  in  this  passage  replaced  YaJitveh, 
when  the  divine  name  ceased  to  be  pronounced  in  reading 


The  Old  Jahvism  99 

does  not  mean  that  the  God  of  Israel  was  taken 
for  absolute  being,  but  that  he  was  a  mysterious 
being,  who  owed  no  responsibility  for  what  he 
was  to  any  person.  Let  them  call  him  Yahweh, 
without  prying  farther.  The  old  author  would, 
probably,  not  have  been  sorry  to  find  a  more 
picturesque  explanation  of  the  divine  name ; 
but  he  does  not  appear  able  to  have  seen  more 
clearly  than  our  modern  critics  into  the  original 
signification  of  the  word.  It  cannot  even  be 
decided  whether  the  form  Jahu,  which  is  met 
with  in  compound  personal  names,  is  older  than 
the  form  Yahweh  or  is  shortened  from  it. 

What  appears  historically  probable  is  that 
the  departure  from  Egypt,  and  the  federation 
of  leading  tribes  which  resulted  later  in  the 
Israelitish  people,  was  effected  under  the  pat- 
ronage of  this  divine  name ;  that  Yahweh 
became  thenceforward  the  God  of  those  tribes, 
and  their  sole  protector.  Moses  accomplished 
the  deliverance  of  Israel  by  invoking  the  power 
and  authority  of  Yahweh.  He  thus  founded 
together  the  religion  and  the  nationality  of 
Israel,  by  uniting  the  tribes  in  the  worship  of 
Yahweh :  the  exclusive  worship  of  a  deity  who 
seems  never  to  have  been  represented  under  a 

Scripture,  because  the  usual  Adonai  or  Elohini  could  not 
be  substituted  here.  Kautzsch,  Die  heilige  Schrift  (3rd. 
ed.),  91. 


lOO     The  Religion  of  Israel 

human  form.  Statues  were  not  manufactured 
in  the  wilderness.  Yahweh  is  the  God  of  Israel ; 
Israel  is  the  people  of  Yahweh,  and  must 
worship  none  but  him :  these  were  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Mosaic  religion.  They  are  not 
formed  upon  philosophical  reasonings,  nor  upon 
metaphysical  conceptions  of  the  divine  unity; 
but  upon  a  very  active  religious  instinct,  and 
uj)on  the  very  clear  notion  which  Moses  him- 
self had  acquired  of  Yahweh,  of  his  nature,  and 
of  his  moral  character. 

The  religion  of  Moses  was  far  from  being  a 
rigorous  monotheism.  To  find  such  a  mono- 
theism in  the  original  texts,  it  has  to  be  read 
into  them  arbitrarily.  But  a  jjeople  which 
conceived  of  Yahweh  as  a  spirit  of  the  night, 
battling  with  Jacob  and  with  Moses  himself, 
stopping  Balaam's  ass,  travelling  in  the  ark, 
and  if  he  were  not  actually  the  brazen  serpent 
yet  owning  a  name,  like  his  neighbour  Gods, 
and  having  like  them  too  a  people  to  watch 
over,  conceived  of  him  obviously  as  a  definite 
and  limited  God,  very  powerful  no  doubt  within 
his  own  sphere  of  action,  and  working  marvels 
in  the  interest  of  his  worshippers,  but  still  a 
God  amongst  other  Gods,  tliough  undoubtedly 
the  strongest,  the  greatest,  and  perhaps  already 
the  best.  It  is,  then,  superfluous  to  point 
to   the   stage  of    monotheism   which   had  been 


The  Old  Jahvism  loi 

reached  early  by  the  priesthoods  of  Egypt  and 
Chaldsea ;  a  doctrine  relatively  learned,  with 
a  tendency  to  pantheism,  in  no  sense  popular, 
and  which  has  no  visible  connexion  with  the 
service  of  a  barbarian  God,  exceedingly  indi- 
vidual and  selfish,  excessively  capricious  and 
fanciful,  such  as  the  old  Yahweh  was. 

Yahweh  was  originally  a  mountain  God. 
The  connexion  of  the  word  Sinai  with  Sin, 
the  moon  God  of  the  Chaldaeans,  does  not 
warrant  us  in  turning  the  protector  of  Israel 
into  a  lunar  deity.  It  has  been  observed  that 
the  Sinai  of  Midian  was  a  volcanic  district, 
and  that  this  explains  why  Yahweh  was  a  fiery 
God,  a  God  of  storms,  and  so  made  easily  into 
a  God  of  war.  His  exclusiveness  might  be 
due  to  the  same  cause.  This  redoubtable  spirit, 
worshipped  by  uncultured  tribes,  was  not 
softened  into  the  patriarch  of  a  divine  family, 
like  the  deities  of  the  nations.  He  was  self- 
sufficing,  and  would  not  tolerate  the  proximity 
of  other  Gods.  This  trait  is  witnessed  to 
beyond  any  doubt.  It  is  not  only  the  tradition 
of  Israel  that  vouches  for  it.  The  tribe  of 
the  Kenites,  which  passed  into  Canaan  in  the 
rear  of  Israel,  but  was  not  merged  in  it  until 
the  captivity,  also  worshipped  Yahweh.  Now 
we  find  a  Kenite,  about  the  middle  of  the 
ninth  century,  Jonadab,    chief  of  the   clan   of 


I02     The  Religion  of  Israel 

Rechab,  by  the  side  of  Jehu  when  there  was 
a  question  of  extirpating  the  religion  of  Baal. 
The  Rechabites  were  fanatical  and  immovable 
Jahvists  :  they  held  to  the  custom  of  the  desert, 
and  continued  to  live  in  tents.  The  spirit  of 
this  venerable  tribe  is  an  important  clue  to 
the  nature  of  primitive  Jahvism.  The  clan 
of  Rechab  owed  nothing  to  the  prophets  of  the 
golden  age,  but  it  followed  the  way  of  life 
which  was  their  ideal ;  and,  like  the  prophets, 
it  chose  to  know  none  other  God  but  Yahweh. 
Its  dogged  fidelity  to  the  ancient  religion  aids 
the  historian  to  understand  how  the  notion 
of  a  worship,  which  excluded  every  other 
divinity  but  the  national  God,  was  able  to 
exist  from  the  beginning  and  to  maintain  itself 
in  Israel.  It  explains  also  the  attitude  and  the 
grievance  of  the  prophets. 

The  God  of  Israel  opposed  himself  to  the 
Gods  of  the  foreigner.  By  so  doing,  he 
acknowledged  their  existence ;  and  was  then 
unable  to  pose  as  the  only  God,  beside  whom 
none  other  could  exist.  Israelites  were 
forbidden  to  worship  the  Gods  of  their 
neighbours ;  but  these  Gods  received  the 
lawful  homage  of  their  own  people.  Jephthah 
did  not  shrink  from  saying  to  the  King  of 
Moab,  "  Wilt  not  thou  possess  that  which 
Chemosh    thy    God    giveth    thee     to    possess? 


The  Old  Jahvism  103 

So  whomsoever  Yahweh  our  God  hath  dis- 
possessed from  before  us,  them  will  we 
possess ! "  *  In  a  foreign  country,  one  is  far 
from  his  presence,  and  has  to  recognise 
other  Gods.  The  holiness  of  Yahweh  consists 
in  his  inviolability  and  inaccessibility,  in  his 
power  to  make  his  will  respected,  but  not 
in  the  moral  perfection  of  his  nature.  His 
character,  it  has  been  said,  shows  a  few 
moral  qualities,  but  is  not  precisely  moral. 
His  power,  his  knowledge,  and  above  all  his 
goodness,  are  limited.  The  God  who  is  thought 
to  have  killed  out-right  those  who  peeped 
into  his  ark,  or  who  stretched  out  a  hand 
to  save  it  from  tumbling,  is  not  a  judge  who 
adjusts  his  punishment  to  the  crime,  but  a 
terrific  being  whom  one  irritates  by  approach- 
ing too  closely.  The  least  infraction  of  his 
will,  the  slightest  attack  on  the  majesty  of 
his  name,  drives  him  into  a  phrensy ;  but  he 
punishes  or  ignores  such  offences  according 
to  his  whim.  He  is  implicated  in  the  pettiest 
tricks  in  the  story  of  Jacob ;  and  it  is  narrated 
that  he  became  an  accomplice  in  theft  for 
the  benefit  of  his  people,  when  he  showed 
them  a  way  of  filching  valuables  from  the 
Egyptians :  when,  through  signal  cowardice, 
both  Abraham  and  Isaac  lent  themselves  to 
'■'  Judares  xi.   24. 


I04     The  Religion  of  Israel 

the  stealing  of  their  wives,  the  ways  in  which 
he  vindicated  their  honour,  are  not  far  from 
ridiculous. 

His  justice  is  the  attribute  of  a  God  who 
makes  his  clients  successful,  who  does  right 
to  Israel  by  giving  him  a  prosperous  life  and 
victory  in  battle.  He  is  guardian  of  the  national 
law,  which  is  held  to  be  just  and  good,  and  is 
also  the  expression  of  the  divine  will.  So  far 
as  he  punishes  the  violation  of  this  law  he  is 
protector  of  the  social  order.  As  his  name  is 
invoked  in  oaths,  he  is  terrible  to  perjurers. 
He  avenges  the  shedding  of  blood,  but  he 
avenges  it  by  blood  ;  and  it  may  happen  that 
he  avenges  it  on  the  guiltless.  It  was  he  who 
ordered  the  immolation  of  some  descendants 
of  Saul,  to  expiate  the  wrong  done  by  their 
ancestor  to  the  Gibeonites.*  Nevertheless  he 
is  a  defender  of  the  weak,  the  widow,  and  the 
orphan ;  but  this  quality,  which  is  in  conformity 
with  the  social  conditions  of  Canaan,  only 
appeared  perhaps  after  the  conquest. 

In  the  same  way,  a  peremptory  choice  of  both 
good  and  evil,  even  moral  evil,  is  attributed  to 
him.  The  more  terrible  a  catastrophe  is,  the 
more  surely  is  his  intervention  recognised. 
It  was  thought  quite  natural  that  he  should 
exterminate  in  a  single  night  all  the  first-born 
*  2  Sam.  xxi.  14. 


The  Old  Jahvism  105 

of  Egypt:  it  was  the  Passing  Through  of 
Yahweh.  Plagues  and  illnesses  were  his  work, 
as  they  were  the  work  of  spirits.  He  blinds 
or  befools  those  on  whose  ruin  he  is  set.  He 
provokes  the  crime  which  he  punishes.  As 
any  violent  transport  of  the  mind,  good  or 
bad,  every  high  gift  or  every  defect  of  the 
intelligence,  were  attributed  to  spirits,  so  in 
like  manner  they  were  attributable  to  Yahweh, 
who  thus  became  the  good  and  evil  genius 
of  his  people.  It  was  his  good  genius  which 
in  the  end  prevailed;  but  it  was  a  long  time 
before  his  mercy  was  pre-eminent,  and  one 
could  rest  with  confidence  under  the  shadow 
of  his  wings. 

It  may,  then,  be  surmised  that  tribes  more 
or  less  related,  and  which  in  their  earlier 
wanderings  had  known  the  God  of  Sinai, 
found  themselves  at  the  time  of  Moses  partly 
in  the  region  of  Kadesh,  in  the  desert  south 
of  Palestine,  and  partly  in  Egypt  in  the  land 
of  Goshen.  The  latter  must  have  been  those 
who  were  described  afterwards  as  the  tribes 
of  Joseph,  the  children  of  Rachel;  the  others 
were  those  who  were  described  as  children 
of  Leah,  and  at  first  as  Levi,  the  clans 
of  Simeon,  those  from  whom  Judah  issued. 
The  tribes  in  Egypt,  wishing  to  regain  their 
freedom,   plotted   with   the   desert   tribes;    and 


io6     The  Religion  of  Israel 

Moses,  the  priest  of  Yahweh,  who  was  the 
God  of  Levi,  was  the  leader  of  the  fugitive 
tribes,  and  brought  them  out  to  their  kinsmen. 
In  gratitude  to  Yahweh,  who  had  delivered 
them  by  his  servant,  perhaps  in  extraordinary- 
circumstances  and  through  dangers  happily 
overcome,  they  entered  by  a  solemn  covenant 
into  a  federation  which  was  ratified  in  the 
name  of  the  mighty  God  of  Kadesh  and  Sinai. 
An  act  of  this  nature  may  explain  the 
persistence  of  the  religious  tie  which  never 
ceased  to  unite  the  tribes,  in  spite  of  the 
separations  and  political  divisions  which  were 
caused  later.  But  the  object  of  the  union  had 
nothing  mystic  about  it;  because  it  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  formed  only  by  reason  of 
the  accomplished  exodus ;  but  with  a  view  to 
defence  against  other  tribes,  who  were  alien  to 
the  religion  of  Yahweh,  and  especially  against 
Amalek:  perhaps,  also,  with  a  view  to  the 
invasion  of  Canaan,  which  soon  began.  The 
conquest,  in  fact,  was  carried  out  in  the  name 
of  Yahweh,  who  was  held  to  be  the  actual 
leader  of  the  adventurous  wars.  When  they 
had  entered  Canaan  it  was  always  under  the 
invocation  and  protection  of  Yahweh  that 
the  scattered  tribes  reassembled  to  face  the 
common  danger.  The  PFa?*s  of  Yahiveh  was  the 
title  of  one  of  the  oldest  books  written  in  Israel. 


The  Old  Jahvism  107 

Yahweh,  as  the  God  of  Israel,  had  his  official 
interpreters  ;  his  priests,  his  seers.  Moses  was 
the  first  of  them.  The  priestly  families,  which 
served  the  sanctuaries  of  Shiloh  and  of  Dan 
later  on,  professed  to  be  descended  from  him. 
Not  one  of  the  legal  collections  inserted  into 
the  Pentateuch  can  be  attributed  to  him;  they 
all  pertain  to  an  Israel  established  in  Canaan. 
Moses  does  seem,  however,  to  have  founded  the 
Tora,  the  instructions  of  Yahweh ;  because  he 
gave  decisions  in  his  name  about  matters  of 
right  and  justice.  These  decisions  were  dictated 
to  him  by  the  oracle  which  was  kept  in  a  tent 
pitched  near  the  sacred  spring  of  Meribah,  at 
Kadesh.  The  actual  name  of  Meribah  means 
"  strife."  The  name  of  Massah,  a  place  near 
Meribah,  means  "trial,"  and  may  thus  have 
some  connexion  with  that  ancient  tribunal, 
which  certainly  was  not  unacquainted  with 
ordeals.  And  the  divine  word  Yahiveh-nissi, 
which  belongs  to  the  same  set  of  institutions, 
may  have  an  analogous  meaning.* 

Moses  figures  in  an  old  story  about  the  battle 
of  Rephidim,  which  may  have  been  taken  from 
"The  Wars  of  Yahweh."  There  he  does  not 
appear   as  a   military    leader,    which    certainly 

*  Nissi  may  be  connected  with  the  same  radical  as 
Massah.  The  Bible  points  to  another  derivation  :  see 
above,  p.  63,  note. 


io8     The  Religion  of  Israel 

he  never  was,  but  as  a  wizard  priest.  While 
Israel,  under  the  leadership  of  Joshua,  fought 
with  Amalek,  Moses  was  on  the  hill  above, 
"  with  God's  rod  in  his  hand."  "  And  it  came  to 
pass,  when  Moses  held  up  his  hand,  that  Israel 
prevailed :  and  when  he  let  down  his  hand, 
Amalek  prevailed."  *  He  was,  therefore,  sup- 
ported until  the  evening,  and  Israel's  victory- 
was  complete. 

Did  he  still  accompany  the  tribes  who 
assembled  themselves  on  the  banks  of  Jordan, 
to  invade  Canaan  from  the  east  ?  The  want  of 
evidence  about  the  place  of  his  tomb  is  urged  in 
a  contrary  sense.  But  the  texts  on  this  point 
are,  rather,  dubious  and  contradictory.  We 
read  at  the  end  of  Deuteronomy  f  that  Moses 
was  buried  near  Beth-Peor,  but  that  the  place 
of  his  burial  is  not  known.  The  first  informa- 
tion is  precise  enough  to  exclude  the  second. 
Perhaps  it  was  believed  formerly,  and  according 
to  a  sound  tradition,  that  they  possessed  his 
tomb;  and  the  prophets,  to  discourage  the 
worship  of  Baal-Peor,  denied  that  Moses  lay 
in  the  place  mentioned.  His  name,  therefore, 
remained  always  connected  with  the  religion 
of  the  desert. 

A  new  period  began  for  the  worship  of 
Yahweh  by  the  settlement  in  Canaan.  The 
*  Exod.  xvii.  8-13.  t  Deut.  xxxiv.  6. 


The  Old  Jahvism  109 

conquest  did  not  happen  in  the  systematic 
way  described  in  the  book  of  Joshua  :  namely, 
a  country  over-run  and  occupied  in  a  few 
years,  after  the  extermination  of  the  inhabi- 
tants. It  was  effected,  rather,  little  by  little, 
through  a  gradual  and  continuous  penetration, 
in  which  war  without  being  exceptional  was 
neither  perpetual  nor  general.  There  was  a 
mingling  and  an  assimilation  of  the  older  popu- 
lations and  of  the  new-comers.  The  final  pre- 
ponderance of  Israel  was  assured  in  the  time 
of  David  by  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem.  Then 
only  did  Yahweh  become  sovereign  of  the 
whole  country.  But  by  that  time  the  religion 
of  the  desert  had  already  yielded  to  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Canaanite  religions.  That 
influence  must  have  been  stronger  in  the 
early  times,  before  the  establishment  of  the 
monarchy ;  it  was  restrained  by  national  senti- 
ment, the  worship  of  Yahweh  being  synony- 
mous with  Israelitish  patriotism ;  later,  it 
was  resisted  and  overcome  by  the  prophets ; 
and  certainly  from  the  beginning  there  was 
a  puritan  tradition,  cherished  by  certain  more 
rigorous  clans,  especially  among  the  priestly 
families  who  inherited  the  tradition  of  Moses, 
and  by  individuals  whose  exceptional  fervour 
predisposed  them  to  be  inspired  by  Yahweh 
and    to    become    the    defenders   of    his   rights. 


no     The  Religion  of  Israel 

The  influence  of  an  encompassing  polytheism 
was  only  overcome  at  last  by  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem  and  the  exile  to  Babylon ;  but  it 
had  lasted  sufficiently  long  and  gone  suffi- 
ciently deep  to  leave  ineffaceable  traces  even 
after  the  establishment  of  legal  Judaism. 

The  Deuteronomist  interpretation  of  the 
legends  about  the  Judges  suggests  a  very  false 
notion  of  the  religious  history  of  Israel  at  the 
time  of  the  conquest.  It  makes  out  a  recurring 
series  of  complete  apostasy,  alternating  with 
periods  of  fidelity  not  less  complete  ;  Yahweh 
was  abandoned  for  the  Baals  of  Canaan ;  he 
avenged  himself  by  sending  a  foreign  con- 
queror; enslaved  Israel  cried  to  its  God,  and 
Yahweh  raised  up  a  deliverer  who  inaugurated 
a  time  of  pure  religion.  Now  Yahweh  was 
never  abandoned  as  the  special  God  of  the 
Israelitish  tribes ;  and  it  is  most  significant 
that  his  worship  was  maintained  after  the 
entry  into  Canaan,  and  amid  populations  more 
civilized  than  Israel,  from  whom  Israel  learnt 
their  civilization.  Nothing  shows  better  the 
extraordinary  force  of  the  religious  impres- 
sions which  were  stamped  upon  the  tribes  by 
the  desert.  But  in  times  of  peace,  and  in 
districts  where  the  Israelite  clans  were  inter- 
mingled with  Canaanite  populations,  the  wor- 
ship of  local  Gods  became  associated  necessarily 


The  Old  Jahvism  in 

with  the  worship  of  Yahweh  :  according  to  the 
accepted  beliefs,  these  Gods  were  lords  of 
the  soil  and  dispensers  of  the  riches  of  the 
land,  and  they  could  not  be  ignored.  In  course 
of  time  they  were  assimilated  by  Yahweh,  and 
absorbed  by  him  ;  but,  prior  to  the  assimilation, 
there  was  an  approximation  and  a  mingling  of 
the  worships.  It  was  only  in  times  of  war, 
when  the  fate  of  the  clans  was  at  stake,  that 
the  God  of  Israel  took  exclusive  possession  of 
his  own  people,  and  that  his  worship  was 
practised  with  intolerance.  The  old  Yahweh- 
Sabaoth,  the  God  of  Hosts,*  reappeared  at  the 
head  of  his  troops  and  led  them  to  victory.  By 
the  jBnal  success  of  the  invasion  he  triumphed, 
and  suppressed  the  Canaanitish  deities,  who 
were  wholly  eclipsed  in  the  splendour  of  the 
victorious  God. 

"  Let  Yahweh  arise,  and  let  his  enemies  be  scattered, 
Let  them  also  which  hate  him  flee  before  him." 

Such  was  the  battle  hymn  with  which  the  ark 
of   Shiloh   was    greeted,   when    the    armies    of 

*  YaMveh-Sabaoth  is  a  divine  title  compounded  like 
Yahiveh-Shalom,  YaJuveh-nissi.  It  designates  Yahweh 
as  God  of  a  special  sanctuary,  which  may  have  been 
Shiloh,  where  the  ark  was.  YaJiweh  of  the  Armies  means 
probably  the  divine  leader  of  the  Israelite  hordes.  The 
name  is  very  old  ;  and  perhaps  it  was  only  later  that  there 
were  dreams  of  celestial  armies. 


112      The   Religion  of  Israel 

Israel  moved  against  the  enemy.  And  when 
they  halted,  to  encamp  after  the  battle : 

"Halt!  Yahweh, 
With  the  battalions  of  Israel.""^ 

On  these  occasions  Yahweh  fought  for  his 
people,  less  ostentatiously  than  the  Homeric 
Gods,  but  just  as  the  God  Ashur  did  with  the 
Assyrians,  and  Ammon  of  Thebes  with  Rameses. 
At  Gibeon,  he  killed  more  enemies  with  his 
hail-stones  than  the  warriors  of  Israel  did 
with  their  swords. 

The  book  of  The  Wars  of  Yahiveh  must  have 
described  the  wonders  accomplished  by  Israel 
under  the  leadership  of  its  God,  from  the 
period  of  the  desert  until  the  establishment 
of  the  monarchy.  If  only  a  few  attenuated 
extracts  have  come  down  to  us  from  this 
grandiose  romance,  it  is  doubtless  because  in 
the  end  its  contents  were  found  more  scan- 
dalous than  edifying.  It  remains,  however, 
that  Yahweh  was  "  mighty  in  battle."  t  He 
was  stronger  and  more  redoubtable  than  all 
the  Baals  of  Canaan,  who  were  the  petty  and 
pacific   Lords   of    agricultural   populations.      It 

*  Literally,  "  with  the  myriads  and  thousands  of  Israel  " 
(Numb.    X.    35-6).     In    verse   36   the    text    reads   shttbd, 
'  return  "  ;  but  it  would  be  better  to  read  shehd,  "  rest." 
f  Psa.  xxiv.  8. 


The  Old  Jahvism  113 

should  be  noticed,  also,  that  the  stories  in 
Judges  refer  to  invasions  which  threatened 
the  independence  and  safety  of  the  populations 
among  whom  Israel  was  settling,  as  well  as 
those  of  the  Israelites  themselves :  Moabites, 
Ammonites,  Midianites,  and  Philistines  are 
mentioned.  The  case  of  Sisera  is  obscure  ;  but 
it  is  at  any  rate  the  question  of  a  sovereign 
who  wished  to  extend  his  rule  over  the  terri- 
tory of  Canaan.  The  victories  of  Yahweh 
over  external  enemies  would  gain  him  the 
recognition  and  worship  of  the  Canaanites. 

These  do  not  appear  to  have  been  warlike. 
Ordinarily,  they  came  to  terms  with  their  in- 
vaders, and  thus  peoples  and  religions  were 
amalgamated.  The  case  of  Gideon's  son, 
Abimelech,  made  King  of  Shechem  by  a  popu- 
lation which  was  not  Israelite,  is  characteristic 
of  the  situation.  Nevertheless,  there  were 
cases  of  resistance ;  some  towns  were  shut 
against  the  nomadic  invaders,  and  small 
coalitions  were  formed  against  them.  These 
hostilities  occurred  specially  in  the  earlier 
times ;  for  then  Yahweh  showed  himself 
pitiless.  If  a  besieged  town  held  out  to  the 
last  extremity,  the  chereim  was  declared,  a  vow 
of  extermination,  which  meant  the  wholesale 
destruction  of  both  population  and  property. 
Jericho  was  treated  in  that  way,  and  was  not 

9 


114     The  Religion  of  Israel 

rebuilt  until  the  days  of  the  kings.  Men  and 
beasts  were  killed ;  the  whole  town  was  burnt, 
including  the  houses  with  all  their  furniture, 
except  objects  of  gold,  silver,  bronze,  and  iron, 
which  were  reserved  for  Yahweh. 

This  terrible  curse  was  not  peculiar  to 
Jahvism,  and  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  see  in 
it  an  unusual  exhibition  of  religious  intoler- 
ance. That  which  fell  under  the  cherem  was 
not  what  was  vowed  to  Yahweh,  but  rather 
what  was  not  included  in  the  vow ;  and  the 
destruction  of  men  and  cattle  should  not  be 
regarded  as  a  monstrous  holocaust.  The 
cherein,  in  old  times,  was  rather  a  solemn 
malediction,  involving  in  a  pernicious  influence, 
as  magical  incantations  did,  everything  included 
in  it.  Yahweh,  like  his  worshippers,  abhorred 
what  was  tainted  by  a  cherem,  and  he  would 
not  accept  it.  It  is  even  related,  in  connexion 
with  the  taking  of  Jericho,  that  the  next 
expedition  failed  because  an  Israelite  had  kept 
back  certain  objects  from  destruction  :  the  whole 
camp  was  polluted,  Yahweh  would  not  go  out 
with  the  warriors  ;  and  matters  were  only  put 
into  a  normal  state  again  by  burning  the 
criminal  with  his  plunder,  his  children,  his 
cattle,  his  tent,  and  covering  all  their  remains 
with   a  great  heap  of  stones.*      Yahweh  was 

'•'  Joshua  vii. 


The  Old  Jahvism  115 

thus  made  the  custodian  of  a  practice  older 
than  himself.  He  held  things  under  a  cherem 
as  things  unclean ;  and  the  cherem  was  only- 
unclean  because  sacred,  but  in  the  evil  sense, 
through  possession  by  a  spirit  of  death.  The 
tribes  had  known  the  cherem  before  entering 
Canaan,  before  belonging  to  Yahweh :  they 
employed  it  now,  and  Yahweh  with  them,  for 
the  honour  of  the  God  and  the  furtherance 
of  his  cause. 

However,  a  system  of  life  in  common  was 
bound  to  be  established,  and  was  established 
soon,  between  Israel  and  the  Canaanite  popu- 
lation, as  groups  of  Israelites  settled  among 
the  people  of  Canaan :  and  it  was  impossible 
to  exclude  religion  from  that  common  life. 
We  know  already  what  the  religion  of  Israel 
was.  The  worship  of  Canaan  was  a  low 
polytheism,  which  concealed  only  superficially 
a  basis  of  animism  and  fetishism,  the  inherit- 
ance from  old  times,  and  perhaps  also  in  part 
from  the  shadowy  peoples  who  had  lived  in 
the  country  before  the  Canaanites  possessed  it. 
Each  locality  had  a  special  God,  its  Baal, 
whose  worship  was  associated  with  that  of  a 
spring,  a  rock,  a  tree,  a  cave,  all  sacred.  The 
altars  were  cut  in  the  rock,  or  made  of  hewn 
stones,  and  were  generally  on  a  height.  By 
the   altar    were  the  sacred    pillar    and    stake, 


ii6     The  Religion  of  Israel 

the  masseha  and  the  ashera,  legacies  of  primi- 
tive religion,  but  now  indispensable  accessories 
of  worship,  and  always  a  sign  of  the  divine 
presence.  They  symbolised  the  Baal  of  the 
place,  and  the  Ashera  or  Astarte,  his  consort. 
Gods  and  Goddesses  should  have  special  names  ; 
and  it  was  easy  to  distinguish  them  by  adding 
the  name  of  their  high  place :  the  Baal  of  one 
city  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  that  of  a 
neighbouring  city,  any  more  than  the  cities 
themselves  are  to  be  confused.  The  division 
of  the  country  into  petty  lordships,  more  or 
less  independent,  explains  this  multiplication 
of  Gods. 

The  worship  corresponded  to  the  agricultural 
life  of  the  population.  The  great  feasts  com- 
memorated the  gathering  in  of  harvests  and 
fruits.  It  was  usually  a  joyous  worship ; 
because  the  Baals  were  nearly  always  kindly, 
and  did  not  grudge  the  fruits  of  the  earth. 
Nevertheless,  the  sacrifice  of  new-born  children 
was  frequent,  and  probably  did  not  cause  the 
least  repugnance.  For  the  most  part  the 
bodies  were  not  burnt,  as  in  Judah  later,  under 
the  last  kings,  but  were  deposited  in  earthen 
vessels  round  the  altars.  We  cannot  say  if 
this  was  an  offering  of  the  first-born.  In  any 
case  the  practice  is  rather  a  survival  of  old 
animistic  and  magical  religions  than  a  product 


The  Old  Jahvism  117 

of  Semitic  polytheism.     The  same  can  be  said 
of  the  prostitution  which  was  associated  with 
the    worship    of    the     Canaanite    Baals.       The 
hiero-douloi  of  both  sexes  were   designated   as 
male  and  female  saints,  and  the  term  was  not 
used   in   mockery ;    for   they   were   consecrated 
personages,  vowed  to  the  Gods,  and   not   only 
given   to    their  worshippers.      We    know   that 
everything     connected    with     generation     was 
sacred   to   primitive   people.      Religious   prosti- 
tution was  often  connected  with  the  worship  of 
the  Goddesses  of  fecundity ;  but  it  is  improbable 
that  these  notions  were  produced  by  mythology, 
because    the    morality   of    the   Gods    after    all 
only   reflects    that    of    men.      This   institution 
originated   more  possibly  in  a   religious   tradi- 
tion which  preserved,  while  modifying  more  or 
less,   customs   which   were    anterior   in   certain 
places    to     any    regular    organization    of    the 
family. 

Yahweh  supplanted  by  degrees  the  Baals 
in  their  own  sanctuaries,  and  they  were  identi- 
fied with  him.  The  Baal  of  Shechem,  El- 
Berith,  "  God  of  the  Covenant,"  the  God  of 
Bethel,  the  God  of  Beersheba,  "  the  Fear  of 
Isaac,"  the  God  of  Hebron,  whose  name  perhaps 
was  El-Shaddai,  gave  place  to  Yahweh,  who 
was  thought  to  have  consecrated  the  old  places 
of  worship  by  appearing  to  the  forefathers  of 


ii8      The  Religion  of  Israel 

Israel.      But    these    imagined    ancestors    were 
none  other  than  the  Gods  themselves,  identified 
at  once  with    Yahweh  who    replaced    them   as 
a  tutelary   God,   and  transformed   into  heroes, 
the  servants  of  Yahweh,  and  the  first  disciples 
of  his  religion :  it  was  Yahweh  who   had  been 
worshipped    by   other    titles    before    his    name 
had  been  uttered  in  Canaan.     The  ancient  local 
fables  were  re-edited,  so  far  as  was  necessary, 
to  make  up  the  legend  of  the  sole  Yahweh  and 
his  only  people.     The  Canaanite  divinities,  who 
were  considered    the   fathers    of   their    people, 
were  transformed  as   Gods  into  Yahweh ;  and, 
in  their  capacity  of  ancestors,  they  were  grafted 
on  to  the  pedigree  of  Israel.     Yahweh  did  not 
even  neglect  to   multiply  himself   a   little,  like 
the  ancient  Baals,  according  to  the  sanctuaries : 
at    Shiloh,   Yahweh-Sabaoth    was    worshipped, 
Yahweh-Shalom     at    Ophra,    and    Yaweh-nissi 
at   Kadesh.     But   the   personality   of    the    God 
remained  indivisible  in  the  national  conscious- 
ness, and  we  may  say  that  he  only  multiplied 
himself  for  the  convenience  of  his  worshippers. 
The    substitution    of   Yahweh   for  the   ancient 
Gods    was    at    times    very    rapid :    before    the 
close  of    David's   reign   the   God  of   Israel   had 
annexed  the   holy  places   of  Jerusalem.     With 
the  sanctuaries,  their  rites  and  customs  passed 
over    to    the    worship   of  Yahweh.     Even    the 


The  Old  Jahvism  119 

consecrated  prostitution  went  on  as  a 
reverend  practice.  The  legend  of  Judah  and 
Tamar  *  shows  that  it  was  not  thought  shame- 
ful. Deuteronomy  was  obliged  to  forbid  it 
within  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  where  it  was 
continued  until  the  reformation  by  Josiah, 
although  it  had  been  opposed  by  the  prophets, 
at  least  after  Amos  and  Hosea. 

Yahweh  without  as  yet  severing  himself 
wholly  from  Sinai  became  an  inhabitant  of 
Canaan  and  of  its  shrines  :  he  was  both  seig- 
neur ihaal)  and  king  {melek).  It  was  he  who 
presided  over  agriculture,  and  gave  the  rain 
in  its  season  ;  he  received  the  first-fruits  of  the 
earth ;  he  adopted  the  Canaanite  feasts  of 
harvest  and  vintage,  and  probably  also  the 
sabbath  which  the  prophet  Hosea  mentions 
among  the  customs  of  the  Baals,  and  which 
was  really  one  of  the  Canaanitish  customs 
introduced  into  the  worship  of  Yahweh. 

The  simplest  relations  of  Israel  with  its 
neighbours  involved  a  certain  communion  in 
worship.  Joining  in  the  same  meal  formed  a 
religious  connexion.  The  legend  of  Joseph 
remarks  that  the  Egyptians  did  not  eat  with 
strangers,  but  the  Israelites  made  no  scruple. 
The  smallest  contract  required  the  interven- 
tion  of  the  Gods  for  the  oaths,  sacrifices,   and 

*  Gen.  xxxviii. 


I20     The  Religion  of  Israel 

meals  which  it  entailed.  Marriages  between 
Israelites  and  Canaanites  brought  the  customs 
of  the  two  worships  right  into  the  household. 
Thus  everything  conspired  to  make  a  fusion 
inevitable. 

That  this  syncretism  did  not  result  in  a  poly- 
theistic religion,  with  a  pantheon  ruled  by  a 
supreme  God,  was  due  to  the  religious  and 
patriotic  feeling  of  Israel,  which  was  summed 
up  by  faith  in  Yahweh,  and  was  strong  enough 
to  prevent  the  maintenance  of  the  Canaanitish 
deities  alongside  the  God  of  Israel.  Religious 
unity  went  parallel  with  national  unity :  as  the 
latter  was  brought  about  by  Israel,  and  to  its 
advantage ;  so  the  former  was  accomplished 
by  Yahweh,  and  for  his  benefit.  The  old  Gods 
represented  a  local  autonomy  which  had  to 
disappear  before  a  political  unification  under 
the  leaders  of  Israel :  Yahweh  represented 
the  unity  and  the  domination  of  a  con- 
quering people.  With  his  oracula,  and  the 
Torah  of  his  priests  ;  with  his  warlike  temper, 
which  made  him  the  veritable  captain  of 
Israel's  armies ;  with  the  system  of  holy  wars 
which  transformed  the  Israelite  warriors 
temporarily  into  a  kind  of  military  order, 
subjected  to  very  strict  military  regulations, 
which  were  its  discipline ;  with  his  enthusiasts, 
of  whom  we   shall    speak  presently,  and  who, 


The  Old  Jahvism  121 

under  the  titles  of  nazirs  and  nahis,  served  him 
as  witnesses  before  populations  most  sensitive 
to  all  manifestations  of  faith,  and  especially 
to  the  most  extravagant,  Yahweh  imposed 
himself  in  every  place  when  Israel  gained  a 
footing.  If  he  had  become  by  this  time  the 
Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  it  would  have  been 
possible  to  subordinate  the  local  Gods  to  him, 
in  the  form  of  heavenly  spirits,  as  was  done 
afterwards  with  the  Gods  of  the  nations ; 
but,  in  these  early  times,  Yahweh  was  not 
transcendental  enough  for  such  a  combination 
to  be  possible.  His  burning  jealousy  sufficed 
to  obliterate  his  rivals.  The  Israelite  who 
worshipped  him  according  to  the  rites  of 
Canaan  remained  not  less  his  vassal ;  but  the 
Canaanite  who  worshipped  Yahweh  yielded 
to  the  exclusiveness  of  this  new  God,  who  was 
so  far  more  exacting  and  redoubtable  than  the 
old  ones. 

§  3 

In  the  train  of  David,  Yahweh  installed 
himself  as  master  on  Mount  Zion  and  in  Jeru- 
salem. It  was  related  that  the  ark  of  Shiloh, 
captured  by  the  Philistines  in  the  time  of  Eli 
the  priest,  had  been  sent  away  by  them  in  a 
cart  without  a  driver,  and  that  it  had  so  come 
to   Beth    Shemesh.     The  people  of    that  place 


122     The  Religion  of  Israel 

had  not  dared  to  keep  it,  because  of  the  deaths 
which  happened  in  the  neighbourhood,  and 
they  offered  it  to  the  dwellers  in  Kirjath 
Jearim  in  Judah ;  where  it  was  lodged  with 
a  certain  Abinadab,  whose  son  was  deputed 
to  minister  to  Yahweh  in  his  sacred  chest.  It 
was  there  that  David  came  to  fetch  it.  The 
identity  of  the  ark  of  Kirjath  Jearim  with 
that  of  Shiloh  may  be  doubted.  David,  how- 
ever, seems  to  have  been  most  eager  to  transfer 
this  ark  to  Jerusalem,  which  would  be  hardly 
explicable  if'  the  sacred  object  had  not  a  well- 
known  past.  At  Shiloh,  the  ark  had  belonged 
to  the  tribes  of  Joseph.  If  its  fortunes  had 
brought  it  into  Judah,  it  would  seem  to  have 
been  rather  neglected  there,  all  the  more  that 
the  places  where  it  sojourned  remained  more  or 
less,  as  it  would  seem,  in  the  power  of  the 
Philistines  until  the  reign  of  David.  He  was 
able  to  recover  it  as  a  symbol  of  the  unity 
which  was  effected  between  tne  northern 
tribes  and  Judah.  His  priest,  Abiathar,  a 
descendant  of  Eli,  had  charge  of  the  ark  of 
Shiloh. 

And  David  went  with  all  his  household  to 
Baal  of  Judah  (the  place  was  named  Kirjath 
Jearim,  "Town  of  the  Woods,"  ov  Kirjath- Baal 
"Town  of  Baal,"  and  it  may  be  asked  if  the 
latter   name  has  not  some  connexion  with   the 


The  Old  Jahvism  123 

sojourn    of   the  ark)  to  bring   thence   the    ark 
of    God,  who    is   called  Yahweh-Sabaoth.     And 
they  set  the  ark  of  God  upon  a  new  cart,  and 
brought  it  out  of    the  house  of  Abinadab  that 
was    in  the  hill,  and  Uzzah  and  Ahio  the  sons 
of   Abinadab  drave  the   new  cart.     And  David 
and  all  the  house  of  Israel  danced  before  Yah- 
weh  with  all  their  might,  and  sang  with  lyres, 
and  harps,  and  tambourines,  and  castanets,  and 
cymbals.        At     a     certain     place      the      cart 
threatened  to  over-turn;    and    Ahio    who    was 
walking  in  front  reached  out  his  hand  to   save 
the  ark,  and  he  fell  down,   smitten.     David,  in 
fear,  renounced    for    the    present  bringing    the 
ark  into  the  city  ;  and  left  it  with  a  foreigner, 
Obededom  of   Gath.     After  only  three  months, 
since   no  accident   had  happened  to  Obededom, 
and  Yahweh  had  blessed  him,  the  king  resolved 
to  house  the  ark  with  himself.      These    details 
are  most  significant :  it  may  be  said  that  David 
had  not  been  familiar  with  the  worship  of  the 
ark,    and    that   he    did   not   adopt    it   without 
some  hesitation. 

Thenceforward  the  alliance  between  Yahweh 
and  the  house  of  David  was  sealed,  and  it  was 
as  profitable  to  the  deity  as  to  the  dynasty. 
David  won  the  prestige  which  secured  his  pos- 
terity on  the  throne  of  Judah  till  the  overthrow 
of  Jerusalem  by  the  Chaldseans.    Yahweh  gained 


124     The  Religion  of  Israel 

from  it  the  assurance  of  his  permanent  triumph 
over  the  Gods  of  Canaan,  for  the  monarchy  of 
Israel  meant  the  reign  of  Yahweh  over  a  sub- 
missive and  united  country.  Nevertheless,  if 
the  king  were  vicar  of  Yahweh,  the  religion  had 
flourished  for  so  long  before  the  establishment 
of  the  monarchy  that  the  sovereign  did  not 
become  in  Israel,  as  he  might  have  otherwise, 
the  incarnation  of  the  national  God,  and  the 
supreme  authority  in  matters  of  religion. 
Jahvism  made  use  of  him  ;  gave  him  authority  ; 
and  it  was  no  small  advantage  for  him  to  be 
Yahweh's  anointed;  he  was  a  consecrated  person. 
But  he  was  not  the  high  priest  of  his  God,  and 
the  Torah  of  Yahweh  was  not  at  his  disposal. 
Never  did  a  King  of  Israel  or  of  Judah  receive, 
like  Hammurabi,  a  revealed  code  to  promul- 
gate. The  law  of  Yahweh  had  other  inter- 
preters. The  priesthood  and  prophetism,  two 
institutions  which  did  not  issue  from  Israel's 
royalty,  and  which  survived  it,  were  the  channels 
of  religious  tradition.  We  shall  have  now  to 
discuss  them  both. 

The  origins  of  the  Levitical  priesthood  are 
not  wanting  in  obscurity.  There  did  exist  a 
tribe  of  Levi  allied  closely  to  Simeon,  and  it  lost 
as  he  did,  and  even  more,  its  territorial  im- 
portance.    The  blessing  of  Jacob*  attributes  the 

*  Gen.  xlix.  5-7. 


The  Old  Jahvism  125 

ruin  of  these  two  tribes  to  an  act  of  violence, 
which  Yahweh  punished.  The  legend  about  the 
taking  of  Shechem  by  the  two  brethren  *  may 
be  connected  with  this  tradition.  But  it  was 
not  that  raid  which  caused  the  loss  of  the  two 
tribes.  Remaining  on  the  borders  of  the  desert, 
and  being  neighbours  of  Amalek,  they  possibly 
succumbed  in  the  long  conflict  against  that  here- 
ditary foe,  who  was  only  overcome  by  Saul. 
The  blessing  of  Moses  postulates,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  Levi  had  no  other  function  than  the 
priesthood.  Is  there  here  a  deception  caused 
by  the  same  word  being  used  for  a  priest  and 
as  the  name  of  an  old  tribe  ?  Or  was  it  out  of 
the  ruins  of  this  tribe,  and  by  its  influence,  that 
the  priesthood  of  Yahweh  was  organized  and 
perpetuated  ?  The  latter  hypothesis  seems  the 
more  likely. 

We  have  seen  previously  that  several  priestly 
families,  and  those  not  the  least  conspicuous, 
professed  to  be  descended  from  Moses.  On  the 
other  hand  it  is  certain  that  the  shrines  could  be 
served  by  the  first-comer  who  was  consecrated 
for  that  purpose.  It  was  the  same  with  the  ark, 
so  long  as  it  was  with  Abinadab,  at  "  the  town  of 
the  woods."  But  a  very  clearly  marked  pro- 
fessional aptitude  was  recognised  in  the  tribe  of 
Levi ;  and  Levites  seem  to  have  sought  out  a 

*  Gen.  xxxiv. 


126     The  Religion  of  Israel 

ministry  wherever  it  could  be  found,  even 
among  other  tribes.  It  would  be  because  they 
were  a  Mosaic  tribe,  and  specially  Jahvist,  if 
we  may  so  express  it,  that  they  enjoyed  this 
preference  and  credit.  They  possessed  the 
traditions  of  the  worship  that  was  proper  for 
Yahweh.  One  may,  then,  see  in  them  the 
descendants  of  the  ancient  priests  of  Levi,  who 
had  ministered,  after  Moses,  in  the  shrine  at 
Kadesh :  driven  thence  by  Amelek,  and  dis- 
persed through  Israel  after  the  destruction  of 
their  tribe,  the  priests  of  Levi  would  have 
become  types  of  the  genuine  priesthood.  Cer- 
tainly, however,  they  did  not  minister  in  all  the 
sanctuaries,  and  all  the  priests  of  Israel  in  the 
time  of  the  kings  were  not  real  Levites. 
Zadok  the  priest  of  Solomon  was  not.  But 
the  name  soon  went  with  the  function  ;  and  the 
priests  who  were  not  Levites  by  origin  were 
none  the  less  attached  to  the  sacred  tribe. 
The  blessing  of  Jacob  ignores  this  development. 
The  blessing  of  Moses  endorses  it.  The  per- 
sonality of  Aaron  is  like  a  doubling  of  Moses  : 
but  in  the  end  he  becomes  ancestor  of  the  house 
of  Zadok,  which  held  possession  of  the  priest- 
hood in  Jerusalem,  and  all  other  sacerdotal 
families  were  simply  grafted  on  to  Levi. 

The    blessing     of      Moses     defines     thus    the 
priestly   functions : 


The  Old  Jahvism  127 

"May  thy  urim  and  thy  thummim  be  with  the  kindred 

of  thy  servant. 
Whom  thou  has  proved  at  Massah, 
With     whom     thou    hast     striven    at    the    waters    of 

Meribah  .   .   . 
For  they  have  kept  thy  word 
And  have  observed  thy  law. 
They  have  taught  thy  judgments  to  Jacob, 
And  thy  commandments  to  Israel ; 
They  offer  the  incense  to  thy  nostrils, 
And  the  sacrifice  upon  thy  altar." 

The  servant  is  Moses  ;  his  kindred  are  the 
Levites ;  the  origin  of  the  priesthood  is  attached 
to  the  sanctuary  of  Kadesh  by  the  reference 
to  Massah  and  Meribah.  The  text  refers  to  some 
etymological  legends  which  have  not  been 
preserved  in  the  Biblical  tradition :  in  our 
records  it  is  not  Moses,  but  Yahweh,  who  is 
tried,  and  with  whom  there  is  a  disagreement. 
Sacrifice  is  put  in  the  last  place  because  it 
was  not  yet  the  chief  duty  of  the  priests.  For 
they  were  not  very  numerous  in  old  times  ;  and 
sacrifice  was  offered  by  families  or  clans, 
without  the  indispensable  ministration  of  a 
priest.  There  was  no  priest  where  there  was 
not  a  "  house  of  God,"  a  shrine  with  an  oracle. 
It  was  the  oracle  of  Yahweh  which  was  the 
business  of  the  priest,  the  reason  for  his  exist- 
ence and  the  cause  of  his  reputation.  The 
answers  of  the  oracle  are   the  judgments  and 


12  8     The  Religion  of  Israel 

the  Tora  of  Yahweh.  It  was  the  oracle  which 
built  up  the  customary  law  of  Israel  and  the 
Mosaic  tradition.  It  was  consulted,  too,  for 
private  as  well  as  public  matters.  Divination 
was  concerned  with  affairs  of  another  kind. 
It  was  the  oracle  which  was  held  to  have 
denounced  the  violation  of  the  cherem  at 
Jericho ;  to  have  indicated  Saul  for  the 
monarchy ;  to  have  revealed  Jonathan's  in- 
voluntary disobedience  to  a  prohibition  by  Saul ; 
to  have  enlightened  David  beforehand  about 
the  result  of  his  plans.  The  priests  must  also 
have  been  medical  exorcists  ;  if  the  examination 
of  lepers  was  deputed  to  them  by  the  Mosaic 
law,  it  was  doubtless  because  they  had  at  all 
times  been  concerned  with  illnesses.  Their 
jurisdiction  extended  also  to  every  case  of 
litigation,  not  only  in  matters  of  ceremonial 
and  religious  observance,  but  also  in  matters  of 
law,  custom,  and  behaviour.  In  matters  of  law, 
the  monarchy  must  have  curtailed  their  duties ; 
for  it  was  the  function  of  the  king,  too,  to 
judge,  and  his  rulings  were  not  subjected  to 
the  revision  of  the  priests.  Religious  and  moral 
education  was  entirely  in  their  hands,  for  the 
prophets  often  rebuked  them  for  neglect  of 
duty  in  this  matter.  The  one  who  is  known 
by  the  name  of  Malachi  exhibits  the  priests  as 
inculcators   of   a   good   life,   as   depositaries   of 


The  Old  Jahvism  129 

knowledge,  and  ambassadors  of  Yahweh 
because  doctors  of  his  Law !  It  cannot,  how- 
ever, be  shown  that  their  teaching  consisted 
in  anything  else  than  replying  to  those  who 
consulted  them.  Even  when  they  became  royal 
officers,  they  represented  a  tradition  with  which 
the  political  authority  had  to  reckon ;  from 
which  it  never  dreamed  of  freeing  itself, 
because  those  traditions  expressed  the  senti- 
ment of  the  nation. 

So  far  as  they  were  entrusted  with  the  divine 
oracles  in  the  matter  of  predicting  the  future, 
the  priests  soon  gave  place  to  the  prophets. 
There  is  no  mention  of  consulting  the  urim 
and  thuminim  after  the  reign  of  David. 
Mechanical  divination  was  replaced  by  living 
oracles. 

The  origins  of  Israelite  prophetism  are  not 
explained  more  clearly  in  the  texts  than  those 
of  the  Levitical  priesthood.  In  the  old  portions 
of  Samuel's  legend  he  is  described  as  a  seer 
{roe) ;  and  it  is  remarked  that  the  term  seer 
was  applied  in  those  times  to  the  persons  who 
were  afterwards  called  prophets  {nabi).  In 
reality,  they  were  not  merely  two  nouns  which 
were  used  successively  to  indicate  the  same 
office,  but  these  names  were  designations 
formerly  of  two  classes  of  people.  Samuel  was 
a    seer;    but    prophets    are    mentioned    in    his 

10 


130     The  Religion  of  Israel 

legend,  and  they  were  enthusiasts,  or  it  mig 
be  said  individuals  divinely  possessed,  who 
made  a  profession  of  that  state,  and  were 
frankly  nothing  else.  In  those  days,  the  type 
of  Israelite  prophet,  which  was  realised  in 
Amos  and  his  successors,  had  not  yet  been 
evolved.  The  prophets  of  the  eighth  century 
had  still  something  of  the  soothsayer,  but 
nothing  of  the  priest.  Samuel  was  a  little  of 
both.  The  prophets  of  his  time,  it  would  seem, 
were  not  descended  from  one  or  the  other, 
although  they  were  servants  of  Yahweh. 
During  the  time  which  extends  from  Samuel 
to  Elisha,  seers  and  prophets  were  approaching 
one  another,  until  they  coincided  in  the  person 
of  Elijah's  disciple.  But  what  Renan  describes 
as  the  corybantism  of  the  prophets  was  very 
much  weakened.  The  prophets  became  seers 
because  they  had  ceased  to  be  outside  the 
domain  of  reason,  and  they  received  the  com- 
munications of  Yahweh  by  visions ;  and  the 
antique  seers  acquired  up  to  a  certain  point 
characteristics  of  prophets  which  were  more 
extravagant  and  odd  than  those  attributed  to 
Samuel  in  the  old  narratives. 

The  seer  must  have  been  prior  to  Jahvism. 
He  was  concerned  with  many  things  which 
had  no  direct  connexion  with  Yahweh  and 
his   governance   of   Israel.     He   might  be   con- 


The  Old  Jahvism  131 

suited  about  strayed  cattle,  just  as  much  as 
about  public  affairs.  Balaam  was  a  seer,  and 
he  does  not  come  to  us  out  of  an  Israelitish 
tradition :  Israel  knew  of  seers  among  the 
neighbouring  peoples.  The  seer  is  rather  the 
diviner  who  speaks  in  the  name  of  a  divinity, 
according  to  certain  signs  or  internal  visions, 
than  a  man  possessed,  if  by  that  term  be 
understood  an  ecstatic  or  a  corybant.  Thus  the 
antique  prophets  of  Israel,  like  Deborah  and 
Samuel,  were  seers:  they  were  successors  of 
Moses,  and  gave  oracles  in  the  name  of 
Yahweh.  They  could,  when  required,  utter 
efficacious  blessings  or  cursings,  as  Balaam  did ; 
for  they  were  also,  to  some  extent,  sorcerers. 
When  Deborah  wished  to  send  Barak  against 
Sisera,  in  the  name  of  Yahweh,  he  refused  to 
march  unless  the  wise  woman  came  with  him  : 
"And  she  said,  I  will  surely  go  with  thee: 
notwithstanding  the  journey  that  thou  takest 
shall  not  be  for  thine  honour ;  for  Yahweh  shall 
deliver  Sisera  into  the  hands  of  a  woman."* 

It  is  believed  commonly  that  the  nabi  only 
appeared  after  the  time  of  the  conquest,  and 
under  Canaanitish  influences;  and  it  may  be 
noticed  that  Baal  had  his  inspired  followers, 
according  to  the  legend  of  Elijah.  But  though 
the  evidence  is  unassailable,  it  does  not  follow 
*  Judges  iv.  8-9, 


132      The  Religion  of  Israel 

that  Israel  had  not  nobis  long  before  the  times 
of  Samuel,  and  that  Jahvism  did  not  produce 
them  spontaneously.  Amos,  who  repudiates 
being  a  nabi  or  the  son,  that  is  the  disciple,  of 
a  nabi,  attributes  the  institution  of  prophets  to 
Yahweh,  without  hesitation,  and  of  nazirites 
too.*  The  nabi  wore  a  dress  of  skins,  and 
this  may  be  a  relic  of  the  desert :  he  belonged 
wholly  to  Yahweh,  like  the  nazirite,  and  the 
two  may  both  have  been  originated  by  Jahvism. 

The  ancient  nazirites  would  seem  to  have 
been  men  possessed  by  Yahweh  for  the  holy 
wars.  They  let  their  hair  grow  long,  and 
drank  no  strong  drink.  These  were  perpetual 
nazirites,  by  the  vow  of  their  parents.  Later, 
the  condition  of  a  nazirite  became  a  form  of 
asceticism,  undertaken  for  a  time,  as  a  pious 
work.  By  a  freak  of  the  legends,  the  ideal 
nazirite,  the  champion  of  Israel  and  of  its 
God,  became  associated  with  the  more  or  less 
fabulous  history  of  Samson. 

The  nobis  were  fanatics  of  another  sort,  but 
none  the  less  fanatics  of  Yahweh.  They 
swarmed  at  the  time  of  the  war  against  the 
Philistines  ;  they  reappeared  again,  simultane- 
ously with  the  Rechabites,  at  the  period  of 
the  Syrian  war  and  the  alliance  with  Tyre, 
under  Ahab. 

''"  Amos  ii.  11-12. 


The  Old  Jahvism  133 

Seers,  nobis,  nazirites  issue  from  the  lower 
forms  of  worship.  They  are  persons  who  have 
a  spirit.  The  seers,  in  their  capacity  of 
diviners,  have  a  knowledge  of  omens,  and  in 
this  they  approach  to  the  magician.  As 
visionaries,  they  are,  like  the  nobis,  men  with 
a  spirit,  thought  to  be  led  by  a  supernatural 
power,  which  dictates  their  oracles.  Nobis 
were  even,  on  special  occasions,  favoured  by 
divine  revelations.  At  such  times  their  utter- 
ances, like  those  of  the  seers,  had  an  efficacy 
resembling  that  of  magical  incantations,  like 
the  solemn  formuloe  of  blessing  and  cursing. 
"  All  that  he  says  comes  to  pass,"  *  says  the 
servant  of  Saul  to  his  master,  referring  to 
Samuel.  Their  oracles  are  like  lots,  which 
bind  the  future.  That  is  why  the  old  records 
put  into  the  mouth  of  Balaam  an  account  of 
the  future  which  is  ordained  for  Israel.  These 
men  with  a  spirit  are  endowed  with  formid- 
able powers.  The  legends  of  Elijah  and  Elisha 
are  full  of  terrifying  episodes,  which  witness 
at  any  rate  to  the  fear  in  which  nobis  were 
held.  The  habit  of  consulting  them  was  early, 
and  the  profession  must  have  been  lucrative. 
They  used  artificial  means  to  produce  inspira- 
tion, and  music  was  one  of  them.  Elisha, 
when     consulted    by   the   kings   of    Judah   and 

''  1  Sam.  ix.  5. 


134     The  Religion  of  Israel 

Israel,  had  a  minstrel  brought  before  he  gave 
his  answer.  "  And  it  came  to  pass  when  the 
minstrel  played,  that  the  hand  of  Yahweh  came 
upon  him.     And  he  said.  Thus  saith  Yahweh."  * 

In  the  days  of  Samuel  and  Elisha,  the  nobis 
formed  a  sort  of  community,  under  the 
management  of  a  head.  Marriage  was  not 
forbidden  to  them.  They  gave  themselves  up 
to  symptoms  which  so  nearly  resembled  mad- 
ness that  the  Hebrew  word  which  describes 
them  is  the  same  as  that  used  for  insanity. 
They  went  about  in  troupes,  accompanied  by 
musicians.  Their  folly  was  catching.  It  is 
narrated  that  Saul,  after  his  first  meeting 
with  Samuel,  falling  in  upon  his  way  with  a 
troup  of  nabis,  was  drawn  to  them  by  the 
divine  spirit,  and  joined  in  their  clamour. 
Whence  the  popular  saying.  "  Is  Saul  also 
among  the  prophets  ? "  f  It  is  obvious  that 
such  people  were  feared  as  channels  of  the 
spirit,  and  a  little  despised  on  account  of  their 
extravagance.  The  officers  of  Jehu  did  not 
hesitate  to  describe  as  a  madman  the  disciple 
of  Elisha  who  promised  the  sovereignty  of 
Israel  to  their  captain  ;  but  w^hen  they  knew 
what  he  was  urging,  they  hastened  to  proclaim 
as  king  him  who  was  pointed  out  by  Yahweh.  | 

^'=  2  Kings  iii.  15-16.  t  1  Sam.  x.  10-12. 

I  2  Kings  ix.  4-13. 


The  Old  Jahvism  135 

At  times  of  crisis,  under  an  able  head,  the 
association  might  play  a  leading  part  in 
politics,  while  seeming  only  to  defend  the 
national  religion.  The  house  of  Ahab  learnt 
this  to  its  cost. 

The  separation  between  Israel  and  Judah, 
after  the  death  of  Solomon,  was  due  to 
political  causes.  The  northern  tribes  bore 
with  impatience  the  supremacy  of  Judah,  and 
above  all  the  fiscal  system  established  by 
David's  successor.  It  is  possible  that  the 
prophets  encouraged  the  secession,  less  because 
of  the  foreign  worships  authorized  by  Solomon 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jerusalem,  than  by 
his  general  attitude,  which  was  that  of  a  pro- 
phane  monarch  influenced  by  the  civilization 
of  the  neighbouring  peoples.  In  any  case, 
Jeroboam,  the  leader  of  the  rebellion,  was 
rather  supported  than  disowned  by  the  pro- 
phets. 

The  worship  organized  in  the  new  kingdom 
was  independent  of  the  temple  which  had  just 
been  built  in  Jerusalem,  and  was  not  different 
from  that  practised  in  the  country  before 
David,  as  well  as  during  his  reign  and  in 
Solomon's.  The  worship  of  Yahweh  on  the 
high  places  of  Gilgal,  Shechem,  Bethel,  and 
Dan  was  traditional,  and  had  been  held  as 
lawful  as    that    which    was    practised    at    the 


136     The  Religion  of  Israel 

sanctuary    of     the    ark.      Until    the    times    of 
Amos  and  Hosea,  the  prophets  did  not  inveigh 
against  that  worship.     Even  the  representation 
of  Yahweh  under  the  form  of  a  bull  does  not 
seem  to  have  caused  the  opposition  and  scandal 
which   it    produced    later.     Doubtless    it    went 
beyond  the  traditions  of  ancient  Jahvism,  and 
that  is  why  it  was  condemned  by  the  reform- 
ing movement  of   the   eighth   century.     But   it 
may   be  doubted   whether   it   was   inaugurated 
by  Jeroboam.     The  intention  attributed  to  him, 
by  the    Deuteronomist    compiler   of  the   Book 
of  Kings,   of  hindering  his  people  from    going 
to     Jerusalem     for     the     feasts,     is     a     sheer 
anachronism  ;  the  northern  sanctuaries   having 
been  frequented   from  times  far   more  ancient 
than     Solomon's     temple,    which    was    only    a 
religious  centre   for  the  House   of   David,   and 
for  the  town  where  it  was  built.     And  it  was 
not    necessary,    either,     to     invent    images    of 
Yahweh   to   replace   the   ark.     Symbols   of   the 
divine   presence   existed   everywhere.      That   of 
the   bull   might   have  been  adopted  as  well  as 
the    stone    of    Bethel,    and    it    was    not   more 
blamable    in    itself    than    the    brazen    serpent. 
The  reproach  of  having  appointed  to  the  divine 
service  men  who  were  not  Levites  is  no  better 
founded,  since  the  priesthood  was   not  yet   an 
hereditary  privilege   of   the  real  or   imaginary 


The  Old  Jahvism  137 

descendants  of  the  ancient  priests  of  Levi.  All 
these  accusations  were  only  formulated  many- 
centuries  after  the  event,  to  discredit  both 
the  ancient  form  of  worship,  and  a  schism 
which  the  Jahvist  puritans  had  been  far  from 
blaming  when  it  first  occurred. 

It  was  probably  the  official  introduction  of 
an  alien  worship  that  brewed  a  quarrel  between 
the  King  of  Samaria  and  the  prophets,  or  at  any 
rate  a  party  of  them.  Ahab  was,  so  far  as 
we  can  judge,  a  brave  prince  and  an  able 
statesman.  To  defend  himself  against  the 
King  of  Damascus,  his  too-powerful  neighbour, 
he  leant  on  Phoenicia,  and  he  married  a 
daughter  of  the  King  of  Tyre.  One  consequence 
of  this  alliance,  which  brought  foreigners  to 
Samaria,  was  the  building  of  a  temple  to  Baal- 
Melcarth.  The  protest  of  Jahvism  was  em- 
bodied in  Elijah,  who  had  also  denounced  the 
judicial  murder  of  Naboth.  That  affair  was 
nothing  extraordinary  in  an  oriental  country ; 
but  the  conscience  of  Israel,  formed  by  the 
Torah  of  Yahweh,  had  already  attained  a 
standard  of  justice  which  would  not  tolerate 
such  a  violation  of  right.  The  intrusion  of  the 
Tyrian  Baal  was  a  far  more  serious  matter. 
It  was  an  injury  to  the  majesty  of  the  God 
of  Israel  on  his  own  territory,  although  Yahweh 
remained  the  national  God,  and  did  not  cease 


138     The  Religion  of  Israel 

to  be  honoured  as  such  by  Ahab  and  his  two 
sons  who  reigned  after  him.  That  the  opposi- 
tion of  Elijah  was  not  founded  upon  any 
principle  of  rigorous  monotheism  is  proved  by 
the  fact  that,  according  to  his  legend,  he  lived 
without  scruple  at  Sarepta,  in  pagan  territory, 
with  a  widow  who  certainly  practised  the 
worship  of  her  country.  But  all  the  policy  of 
Ahab,  which  was  wise  to  those  who  thought 
only  of  the  prosperity  of  the  kingdom,  was 
equally  condemned  by  the  zealots  of  Jahvism, 
because  their  God  refused  to  share  any  of  his 
honour  with  others.  And  Yahweh,  who  was 
the  only  lawful  master  of  Israel,  was  he  not 
able  also  to  protect  it  ? 

Nevertheless,  Ahab  was  popular,  and  all 
the  prophets  were  not  against  him.  It  was  only 
under  Joram,  his  son,  and  his  second  successor, 
that  an  army  plot,  encouraged  or  even  pro- 
voked by  Elisha,  set  Jehu  on  the  throne. 
Jehu  was  the  candidate  of  the  prophets ;  and 
the  motto  of  the  revolution  was  a  rupture 
with  Tyre,  and  the  expulsion  of  its  Baal.  The 
Jahvist  reaction  was  stained  by  the  most 
odious  murder,  and  was  practically  limited  to  an 
expulsion  of  the  foreign  worship.  Jehu  was 
helped  in  his  bloody  task  by  Jonadab,  the  chief 
of  the  Rechabites.  If  there  were  then  no 
reformation   of    the    national    worship,    it  was 


The  Old  Jahvism  139 

because  the  most  zealous  Jahvists  did  not  see 
any  need  for  it.  The  Ephraimite  kingdom 
was  none  the  less  enfeebled,  and  it  was  only 
under  the  grandson  and  the  great-grandson  of 
Jehu  that  it  rallied  for  a  time,  when  the  power 
of  Damascus  was  broken  by  the  Assyrian  con- 
querors. The  old  Elisha,  as  long  as  he  lived, 
supported  the  house  of  Jehu.  It  is  said  that 
on  his  death-bed  he  foretold  the  victories  of 
Israel  over  the  Syrians.  King  Joash,  grand- 
son of  Jehu,  had  come  to  see  him ;  and  the 
nahii  in  this  instance  one  might  still  say  the 
magician,  ordered  him  to  strike  some  arrows 
on  the  ground  :  Joash  obeyed,  and  smote  thrice  ; 
"And  the  man  of  God  was  wroth  with  him, 
and  said.  Thou  shouldest  have  smitten  five  or 
six  times ;  then  hadst  thou  smitten  Syria  till 
thou  hadst  consumed  it :  whereas  now  thou 
shalt  smite  Syria  but  thrice."  * 

From  these  times  onward,  it  is  clear  that 
prophecy  and  royalty  will  be  unable  to  agree, 
if  royalty  considers  its  interests,  seeks  necessary 
alliances  abroad,  and  if  it  does  not  reckon  with 
the  sentiment  of  the  men  of  God.  The  force  of 
the  religious  tradition  which,  by  the  prophets, 
overthrew  the  dynasty  of  Ahab  in  Israel, 
re-established  by  the  priests  the  family  of 
David  in  Jerusalem,  after  the  usurpation  of 
*  2  Kings  xiii.  19. 


140     The  Religion  of  Israel 

Athaliah.  Everywhere  the  religious  question 
intruded,  became  more  and  more  acute,  and 
rendered  impossible  the  normal  working  of  a 
secular  monarchy.  Jahvism  prepared  the  ruin 
of  the  Hebrew  states.  It  may  be  pointed  out, 
in  compensation,  that  these  petty  kingdoms 
must  inevitably  have  perished,  like  their  neigh- 
bours ;  and  the  prophets  secured  the  perpetua- 
tion of  Israel,  through  its  religion. 


PROPHECY 


CHAPTER  IV 


PROPHECY 


ONE  of  the  most  singular  characteristics  of 
Jahvism  is  assuredly  the  evolution 
which  out  of  the  seer,  diviner,  and  sorcerer, 
out  of  the  raving  enthusiast,  produced  the 
prophet  of  the  last  period  of  the  monarchy ; 
the  judge  of  kings,  the  defender  of  the  poor, 
the  preacher  of  righteousness,  always  pre- 
occupied with  a  future  by  the  traditions  of 
his  office,  but  subordinating  his  predictions  to 
his  moral  teaching.  Prophecy  became  the 
interpreter  of  a  religion  that  condemned  all 
methods  of  divination,  using  the  term  accu- 
rately. Nevertheless,  some  traces  of  its  origin 
remained  until  the  last  vestiges  of  a  Jewish 
nationality  had  vanished.  The  religious  ideal 
was  being  continuously  purified ;  but  the  scheme 
and  notion  of  a  future,  whose  course  it  was 
thought  possible  to  fix,  survived  in  a  Judaism 
petrified  under   the  Law,  and  even   under  the 

143 


144     The  Religion  of  Israel 

Gospel  though  it  had  shaken  off  the  legal 
fetters.  An  imperious  preoccupation  with  the 
future  fell  away  from  Judaism  and  Christianity 
only  when  they  had  become  religious  organiza- 
tions without  any  national  setting,  and  had 
thus  transfused  the  greater  part  of  their 
expectations  into  an  immortality  which  is 
imagined  to  provide  an  equitable  and  imme- 
diate compensation  for  the  present  life,  by 
atoning  for  its  miseries  and  injustice.  The 
zenith  of  prophecy  in  Israel  was  attained  at 
the  epoch  of  the  Assyrian  invasions,  and  it 
did  not  last  after  the  destruction  of  the 
Judaic  monarchy  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  This 
was  the  period  of  the  prophets  who  wrote, 
and  it  was  also  the  beginning  of  the  Law. 

§  1 

The  intrusion  of  Assyria  into  Palestinian 
affairs  drove  the  prophets  to  look  far  beyond 
the  frontiers  of  Israel ;  and  to  frame  larger  and 
deeper  conceptions  of  the  world  and  of  man- 
kind, and  consequently  of  God.  Their  political 
horizon,  was  enlarged  indefinitely :  their  con- 
ception of  the  providential  government,  of  its 
laws  and  plans,  widened  in  proportion ;  but 
Yahweh  still  held  the  primacy  wLiich  had  been 
his  formerly.  Whence  came  this  victorious 
people?   Who  gave  it  its    high    fortune?   Why 


Prophecy  145 

did  it  prevail  against  Israel?  These  were  the 
tragic  and  practical  questions  which  clamoured 
for  an  immediate  answer  ;  and  which  the  pro- 
phets could  only  decide  by  the  principle  of  a 
moral  monotheism,  unless  they  were  to  repu- 
diate their  special  tradition  of  a  just  and 
almighty  God,  and  so  degraded  Yahweh  to  an 
equality  with  the  Baals  whom  they  had  always 
regarded  with  contempt.  It  must  be  Yahweh 
who  stirred  vip  the  King  of  Asshur  because 
everything  which  happens  in  the  world  is 
caused  by  Yahweh's  will.  It  must  be  Yahweh 
who  made  the  King  of  Assyria  succeed,  and  not 
the  Gods  of  his  own  country ;  because  Yahweh 
is  the  real  master  of  heaven  and  earth.  If 
Yahweh  allows  the  Assyrian  king  to  oppress 
Israel,  it  is  because  Yahweh  himself  is  angry 
with  his  people,  and  angry  with  good  reason. 
They  have  not  served  him  as  he  wishes :  they 
have  worshipped  other  Gods,  in  spite  of  his 
prohibition ;  they  thought  to  have  honoured 
him  sufficiently  by  their  sacrifices,  he  who 
requires  above  all  things  the  practice  of 
righteousness,  respect  for  duty,  and  fidelity  to 
his  Law. 

But,  in  spite  of  having  become  the  lord  of 
heaven  and  earth,  and  the  disposer  of  history, 
the  God  of  the  prophets  before  the  captivity 
is  not   yet  the  sole  and  absolute    God.      He    is 

11 


146      The   Religion   of  Israel 

always  merely  the  God  of  Israel :  he  is  really 
occupied  with  his  own  people  alone,  and  is 
only  concerned  with  other  nations  so  far  as  to 
use  them  as  instruments  for  those  designs. 
And  when,  after  the  terrible  judgment  which 
they  predicted  for  that  guilty  people,  they 
foresaw  a  restoration,  it  is  always  Israel  that  is 
in  question,  and  not  mankind.  No  doubt 
Yahweh  had  separated  himself  so  far  from  the 
other  Gods  that  it  was  no  longer  possible  to 
consider  him  in  the  same  rank  with  them,  and 
he  had  left  them  scarcely  any  influence  in  the 
administration  of  the  universe.  But  these  Gods 
were  not  yet  reduced  to  the  rank  of  inferior 
spirits :  they  were  not  yet  condemned  to  non- 
existence, though  they  were  Gods  for  whom 
there  was  not  any  farther  use. 

While  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  century, 
Amos,  Hosea,  Micah,  required  that  men  should 
obey  the  Law  of  Yahweh,  they  do  not  refer  to 
any  written  law.  It  seems  that  only  a  part, 
and  not  the  least  important,  though  the  least 
considerable  in  bulk,  of  the  statutes  which  are 
now  in  the  Pentateuch  was  written  in  their 
times.  If  one  or  other  of  those  first  collections 
are  found  more  or  less  in  agreement  with  what 
the  prophets  held  to  be  the  religious,  moral,  and 
social  duties  of  every  Israelite,  they  did  not  con- 
stitute the  whole  Law  of  Yahweh  :  for  that  also 


Prophecy  147 

included  the  teaching  given  by  the  prophets 
themselves  in  the  name  of  the  God  of  Israel. 
It  may  be  admitted  freely  that  the  Jahvist 
decalogue,  which  is  contained  in  the  thirty- 
fourth  chapter  of  Exodus,  and  that  part  of  the 
same  book  which  is  known  as  The  Book  of  the 
Covenant,  represented  for  the  eighth  and  ninth 
centuries  the  written  commandments  of  the 
divine  Law. 

The    decalogue  may  have  been    constructed 
thus  : — 

Thou  shalt  not  worship  any  foreign  God. 

Thou  shalt  not  cast  any  molten  Gods. 

Thou  shalt  keep  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread. 

[Thou  shalt  give]  me  all  the  first-born. 

Thou  shalt  solemnize  the  feast  of  weeks, 

And  the  feast  of  the  vintage  at  the  year's  end. 

Thou  shalt   not  mix   with   leavened   bread   the   blood  of 

my  victim. 
Nothing   of   the   Paschal  victim    should   remain    till    the 

morning  : 
Thou   shalt   bring   the   first-fruits    of    thy    harvest    into 

the  house  of  Yahweh  thy  God. 
Thou  shalt  not  seethe  a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk.* 


'■'  Exod.  xxxiv.  14-26.  The  text  has  been  liberally  com- 
mentated, and  the  reconstruction  of  the  ten  precepts  is 
hypothetical.  The  commandment  about  the  Sabbath  is 
omitted  here,  v.  21,  because  it  is  not  in  its  place  between 
instructions  about  the  three  great  feasts,  and  it  is  rather  a 
commentary  on  the  Sabbath  thcxn  a  commandment.  The 
command  about  the  first-born  is  retained,  because  it  is  not 


148     The  Religion  of  Israel 

This  little  Torah  is  exclusively  ritualistic : 
we  may  believe  it  is  of  priestly  origin,  and  un- 
doubtedly it  is  earlier  than  the  first  writing 
prophets,  who  attached  no  importance  to  ritual. 
But  it  displays  the  exclusive  worship  of  Yahweh, 
by  ordaining  the  feasts  which  we  may  describe  as 
national :  the  Passover  and  the  Unleavened 
Bread,  the  feasts  of  the  harvest  and  the  vintage. 
The  prohibition  of  molten  images  may  be 
directed  already  against  the  bulls  of  Dan  and 
Bethel.  If  the  document  did  not  originate  in 
Jerusalem,  "  the  house  of  Yahweh  "  would  mean 
every  sanctuary  whither  first-fruits  could  be 
brought  to  the  priests. 

The  Book  of  the  Covenant*  lays  down  the 
principles  of  domestic  and  social  morality,  and 
at  the  same  time  the  essential  regulations  of 
worship.  Unity  in  the  place  of  worship  is 
expressly  denied.  "  An  altar  of  earth  shalt 
thou  make  unto  me,  and  shalt  sacrifice  thereon 
thy  burnt  offerings,  and  thy  peace  offerings, 
thy  sheep,  and  thine  oxen  :  in  any  place  where 
I   cause    my   name   to    be   remembered    I   will 

unconnected  with  the  Paschal  victim  ;  but  the  text  seems 
to  be  vitiated,  and  the  words  "thou  shalt  give  "  have  been 
added  for  the  sake  of  the  parallelism,  according  to  Exod.  xxii. 
28.  The  original  meaning  of  this  commandment  will  be 
shown  later. 

'•'  Exod.  XX.  22  ;  xxiii.  23. 


Prophecy  149 

come  unto  thee  and  I  will  bless  thee.  And  if 
thou  make  me  an  altar  of  stone,  thou  shalt 
not  build  it  of  hewn  stones :  for  if  thou  lift 
up  thy  tool  upon  it  thou  hast  polluted  it. 
Neither  shalt  thou  go  up  by  steps  unto  mine 
altar,  that  thy  nakedness  be  not  discovered 
thereon."*  Simple  orders,  for  a  worship  that 
has  nothing  in  common  with  the  gorgeous 
construction  of  stone  and  metal  which  made 
the  temples  of  Solomon  and  of  the  restoration 
conspicuous.  It  is  the  description  of  a  sanc- 
tuary which  might  exist  in  the  smallest  centres 
of  population.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant 
demands  also  for  Yahweh  all  the  first-born, 
and  the  first-fruits.  It  strikes  with  the  cherem, 
the  curse  of  blood,  whoever  sacrifices  to  any 
other  God  than  Yahweh. 

But  one  ought  to  sacrifice  to  Yahweh.  The 
prophets  before  Amos  never  dreamed  of 
preaching  a  centralization  of  worship  in 
Jerusalem ;  and  even  Amos  and  Hosea  while 
protesting  against  the  forms  of  worship,  made 
no  protest  against  the  multiplicity  of  sacrificial 
places.  Before  then  no  one  had  suspected  that 
the  system  of  sacrifice  might  lead  to  abuses. 
Everything  went  on  as  though  worship  were 
guided  only  by  a  traditional  custom,  which 
authorized  sacrifice  in  all  the  towns  and 
*  Exod.  XX.  24-26. 


150     The  Religion  of  Israel 

villages,  though  with  a  decided  preference  for 
certain  shrines  which  were  specially  venerated. 
It  is  no  less  true  that  the  prophets  after  the 
middle  of  the  eighth  century  condemned  the 
worship  that  was  practised  in  their  time  ;  and 
which,  for  the  most  part,  resembled  that  which 
was  sanctioned  by  the  documents  just  quoted. 
Nevertheless,  they  are  not  conscious  of  inno- 
vating, though  they  rebuke  a  religious, 
political,  and  social  state  to  which  the  pre- 
ceding centuries  had  conformed.  Their  claim 
of  going  back  to  the  beginning  is  usual  among 
religious  reformers.  It  involves,  none  the  less, 
an  impossibility.  The  past  can  never  be 
revived,  except  under  new  forms ;  and  the 
prophets  in  effect  renewed  the  meaning  of  the 
old  creed :  Yahweh  is  the  God  of  Israel,  and 
Israel  is  the  people  of  Yahweh.  For  the 
requirements  of  God  had  risen  into  the  moral 
order,  and  were  no  longer  chiefly  ritual ;  and 
the  morality  in  question  was  not  identical 
with  custom.  It  was  acquiring  the  absolute 
character  of  ideal  justice,  though  it  was  of 
necessity  still  affected  by  date  and  environ- 
ment. Yahweh  was  considered  as  united  to 
Israel  by  his  free  choice,  which  he  could  with- 
draw, and  not  by  a  kind  of  natural  and  irre- 
vocable fatality.  He  explained  contemporary 
events  by  means  of  his  prophets,  according   to 


Prophecy  151 

the  principles  of  wisdom  and  justice  ;  for  they 
are  no  longer  manifestations  of  a  more  or  less 
arbitrary  decree. 

The  notion  of  the  ruin  of  Israel  by  the 
judgment  of  its  God  could  never  have  been 
formed  by  the  old  Jahvists :  nor  was  it 
accepted,  any  more,  by  the  mass  of  people 
who  were  upbraided  by  the  prophets  for  their 
infidelity.  Nevertheless  the  prophets  did  not 
allow  that  an  opinion  other  than  their  own 
might  be  held  on  all  these  questions.  The 
faith  which  possessed  them  was  a  hindrance 
to  grasping  the  reality  of  the  past,  or  the 
true  relation  of  the  present  to  that  past  which 
they  interpreted  capriciously  through  their 
own  conceptions  of  it.  They  did  not  speak  of 
Israel's  life  in  the  desert  by  any  reliable  tradi- 
tion ;  but  they  fashioned  an  ideal  for  them- 
selves, which  they  contrasted  with  the  abuses 
of  the  present. 

They  must  not,  however,  be  imagined  as 
entirely  aloof  from  the  ordinary  beliefs  of 
their  time.  Hosea,  for  instance,  describing  the 
future  condition  of  Israel  in  exile,  speaks  thus 
of  the  offering  of  the  first-fruits,  and  of  its 
necessity  : 


They  shall  not  pour  out  wine  to  the  Lord. 
Neither  shall  they  be  pleasing  unto  him  : 


152     The  Religion  of  Israel 

Their    sacrifices   shall   be  unto  them  as   the   bread   of 

niourners  ; 
All  that  eat  thereof  shall  be  polluted  : 
For  their  bread  shall  be  for  their  own  appetite  ; 
It  shall  not  come  into  the  house  of  Yahweh."  ''' 

As  it  was  impossible  to  offer  the  first-fruits 
of  the  harvest,  all  the  produce  of  the  earth  is 
contaminated,  like  the  bread  used  at  funeral 
banquets :  they  themselves  are  not  holy,  but 
impure,  like  everything  belonging  to  the  spirits. 

These  uncompromising  believers  are  quiet 
spirits  compared  with  the  frenzied  nobis  in 
former  times.  They  bore,  however,  the  same 
name  and  dress.  They  were  always  visionaries, 
who  mistook  for  revelations  of  Yahweh  the 
conceptions  which  swarmed  in  their  own 
heads.  Their  symbolical  actions  are  another 
proof  of  their  excitability.  Isaiah  walked 
without  clothes  and  shoes  in  the  streets  of 
Jerusalem,  like  a  prisoner  of  war,  to  show  the 
fate  of  those  who  would  oppose  the  King  of 
Assyria.  Jeremiah  carried  a  yoke  on  his 
shoulders,  to  show  the  necessity  of  submitting 
to  the  King  of  Babylon :  another  prophet  tore 
off  his  yoke  and  smashed  it,  to  proclaim  the 
deliverance.  Ezekiel  went  still  farther ;  but 
he  belonged  to  the  decadence  of  prophecy,  and 
many    of    his    figurative    acts    were    probably 

*  Hosea  ix.  4. 


Prophecy  153 

mere  written  symbolism.  It  should  be  noted, 
that  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah  and  perhaps  long 
before,  the  officials  of  the  temple  in  Jerusalem 
included  special  inspectors  or  overseers  of  the 
prophets  ;  and  that  in  the  out-buildings  of  the 
sanctuary  there  was  a  prison  where  excitable 
and  unruly  nabis  were  put  in  the  stocks.  This 
appeared  quite  natural,  and  Jeremiah  himself 
made  acquaintance  with  that  prison.* 

The  first  prophets  who  are  described  as 
writers  were  something  very  different  from 
men  of  letters.  Their  oracles  were  still  a  verbal 
teaching,  like  the  Torah  of  the  priests;  but 
they  were  generally  rhythmic,  and  in  the  form 
of  brief  declamations.  The  prophets  did  not 
think  of  writing  until  their  preaching  was  not 
listened  to,  or  was  prevented.  Thus  Jeremiah, 
after  twenty  years  of  his  ministry,  dictated  to 
Baruch  the  whole  series  of  menacing  predic- 
tions which  he  had  uttered  from  the  begin- 
ning ;  and  he  sent  his  disciple  to  read  them 
in  the  temple,  so  as  to  produce  a  greater  effect 
than  by  a  single  prophecy.  The  reading  made 
a  stir ;  but  the  king's  men  seized  the  book, 
and  Jehoiakin  burnt  it.  Jeremiah  had  to 
repeat  his  dictation,  though  the  reading  was 
not  repeated.!  Generally,  it  was  the  disciples 
of  the  prophets  who  collected  their  predic- 
'•'    Jer.  XX.  1-3,  xxix.  26.  t  Jer.  xxxvi. 


154     The  Religion  of  Israel 

tions,  so  that  their  accuracy  might   be  proved 
by  the  event. 

Nothing  was  impossible  to  faith:  that 
accuracy,  almost  invariably  stultified  by  facts, 
did  not  fail  to  be  asserted  by  Jewish  and 
Christian  tradition.  The  texts  have  been  fre- 
quently corrected  or  completed  afterwards, 
and  the  interpretation  was  always  indulgent. 
And  even  at  present,  when  it  is  asserted  that 
the  utterances  of  the  prophets  were  a  preach- 
ing, and  when  this  characteristic  is  exagger- 
ated, it  is  urged  freely  that  their  threats  and 
promises  were  conditional,  and  that  their  accom- 
plishment depended  on  the  repentance  or  the 
obduracy  of  Israel.  That  condition  may  be 
found  in  some  cases ;  but  more  often  the 
prophets  thought  they  were  making  certain 
and  absolute  predictions.  Their  credit  rested 
on  their  supposed  knowledge  of  the  future.  It 
was  by  reason  of  this  imagined  knowledge 
that  they  were  consulted,  and  in  their  con- 
fidence of  that  knowledge  they  answered.  And 
ordinarily,  as  was  natural,  the  event  did  not 
confirm  either  their  menacing  or  their  favour- 
able provisions,  in  the  ways  they  had  indicated. 
As  far  as  regards  particular  predictions  about 
individuals,  the  prophets  were  only  experienced 
diviners,  who  were  dominated  by  considerations 
of  morality.     It  can  hardly  be   said  that    they 


Prophecy  155 

foresaw  the  future  of  their  religion ;  for  the 
histories  of  Judaism  and  of  Christianity  have 
differed  widely  from  their  preconceptions. 
What  is  true  is  that  their  glowing  hope  has 
in  a  certain  measure  created  the  object  of  it, 
by  ensuring  the  preservation  of  their  beliefs. 

§  2 

' '  Surely  the  Lord  Yahweh  will  do  nothing, 
But   he    revealeth    his    secret   with    his    servants    the 

prophets  ; 
The  lion  hath  roared,  who  will  not  fear  ? 
The     Lord     Yahweh     hath     spoken,     who     can     but 

prophesy  ?  "  ''' 

So  says  Amos,  of  Tekoa  in  Judah,  whom  the 
divine  inspiration  had  taken  from  his  flocks, 
to  lead  him  to  Bethel,  and  to  make  him 
prophesy  there  against  Ephraim,  in  the  time 
of  Jeroboam  II.  Before  him,  "  the  day  of 
Yahweh"  meant  the  triumph  of  Israel  over 
its  enemies.  For  him  "  the  day  of  Yahweh " 
is  the  day  when  the  God  of  Israel  chastises  his 
people.  A  nation  whom  he  does  not  name, 
but  which  can  only  be  Assyria,  will  come  and 
remove  Israel  out  of  its  country.  Worship  is 
corrupt,  the  great  men  are  greedy  and  oppress 
the   small :  Israel   is   of   no  more  account  with 

'•'  Amos  iii.  7-8. 


156     The  Religion  of  Israel 

Yahweh  than  the  Philistines  and  the  Aramaeans  ; 
it  will  be  exterminated  from  the  earth. 

Amos  is  all  pessimism.  His  successors  are  no 
less ;  but  they  do  not  rest,  and  could  not  rest, 
in  the  prospect  of  a  ruin  which  would  leave 
Yahweh  without  any  worshipper  on  earth.  A 
reign  of  justice  will  come  after  the  great  catas- 
trophe. The  notion  of  chastisement  is  not  less 
conspicuous  among  the  prophets  before  the 
captivity.  Their  passion  in  foretelling  the 
destruction  of  their  country  seems  at  first 
inexplicable.  Is  it  an  understanding  of  the 
situation,  and  of  the  political  future  of  the 
East  ?  Certainly  they  guaged  the  inevitable 
fate,  which  awaited  the  petty  states  of  Palestine, 
better  than  the  sovereigns  and  their  ministers. 
Though  it  was  evidently  not  their  clear  vision 
which  made  them  pessimists,  but  their  pessimism 
which  made  them  see  clearly.  They  think 
everything  goes  from  bad  to  worse  in  religion 
and  society :  menace  from  abroad  comes  abund- 
antly to  satisfy  their  appetite  for  chastisement. 
Neither  should  the  grim  character,  which 
Jahvism  drew  from  its  origins,  be  forgotten, 
nor  the  ferocious  temper  of  its  God.  The 
moment  his  peoj)le  were  thought  not  to  be 
giving  him  satisfaction,  the  rage  of  Yahweh 
knew  no  half  measures.  Possibly  he  had  become 
even  more  terrible  since  he  had  learnt  to  be 


Prophecy  157 

more  exacting  morally.  Was  he  not  the  God 
who  to  cure  the  evils  of  humanity  had  destroyed 
it  entirely  by  a  flood  ? 

Some  fifteen  years  after  Amos,  there  came 
Hosea.  Deceived  by  his  wife,  the  prophet 
discerned  in  that  infidelity  a  figure  of  Israel's 
offences  against  its  God.  He  would  not  allow 
that  the  religion  of  his  people  resembled  that 
of  the  natives ;  but  he  finds  that  the  worship 
of  Yahweh,  as  it  is  practised  all  about  him, 
is  merely  a  service  of  Baal.  Israel  is  an  idolater 
from  the  beginning.  Yahweh  says  by  his 
prophet : 

' '  As  grapes  in  the  wilderness, 
I  have  found  Israel  ; 
As  the  first  ripe  on  the  fig-tree  in  her  season, 

I  saw  your  fathers  : 
But  they  all  went  to  Baal-Peor, 
And  bowed  themselves  to  Baal "  '^' 

Hosea  talks  with  a  superb  disdain  of  the 
calf  of  Bethel.  He  considers  that  royalty  was 
established  in  spite  of  Yahweh,  and  that  it  is 
one  of  Israel's  sins.  Not  in  him  will  be 
discovered  the  notion  of  a  messianic  prince,  f 
Idol  and  king  will  perish  together,  without 
recovery.      Hosea   names   the   executor   of   the 

"'  Hosea  ix.  10. 

t  Hosea  ii.  1-3  and  iii.  5  are  regarded  as  interpolations. 


158     The  Religion  of  Israel 

divine  judgments :  the  King  of  Assyria.  During 
his  time,  in  fact,  Menahem  was  tributary 
to  Tiglath  -  Pileser.  Hosea  condemned  the 
efforts  made  to  propitiate  that  earthly  ruler, 
though  the  King  of  Samaria  could  not  help 
himself.  But  help  should  not  be  sought  from 
any  human  power.  Yahweh  alone  is  the 
sufficing  aid. 

This  repudiation  of  foreign  alliances  was  not 
due  only  to  trust  in  the  God  of  Israel,  but  to  the 
fact  that  alliances  with  the  foreigner  meant 
also  a  covenant  with  his  Gods,  and  an  official 
recognition  of  them.  The  good  feeling  and  the 
relations  that  followed  would  certainly  lead 
on  to  acts  which  would  be  blamable  by  faith. 
But  it  is  evident  that  the  policy  of  the  prophets 
was  not  politic,  and  that  it  must  end  in  the 
ruin  of  the  state. 

Notwithstanding  these  gloomy  prognostica- 
tions, Hosea  was  not  hopeless.  The  recon- 
ciliation which  was  made  in  his  own  household 
prefigured  that  which  would  occur  between 
Yahweh  and  his  people,  after  the  impending 
punishment.  This  was  the  earliest  outline  of 
the  kingdom  of  God ;  but  the  conception 
remained  vague  ;  and  the  future  happiness 
was  limited  to  Israel,  but  an  Israel  purified. 

Isaiah  prophesied  in  Jerusalem  about  the 
year   740,  and  he  was  prophesying  still  in   701. 


Prophecy  159 

He  had  seen  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of 

Israel  by  Sargon,  in  722,  and  twenty-one  years 

later  the  devastation  of  Judah  by  the  armies  of 

Sennacherib.     In  the  earlier  time,   condemning 

the  state  of  religion,  almost  as  Amos  and  Hosea 

had,  he  foretold  the  ruin  of  Israel  and  Judah  by 

the  Assyrians.     He  saw  corruption  and  injustice 

everywhere.      Yahweh    will     punish,    but    not 

without  relenting   and   making   exceptions.     A 

son   of  the   prophet  was  named   Shear- Jashub, 

"  the  remnant  shall  return,"  to  show  that  a  body 

of  righteous  persons  will  survive  the  great  trial 

and  perpetuate  the  chosen  race.     Belonging  to 

a  country  in  which  monarchy  was  powerful  and 

reverenced,  he  conceived  the  Israel  of  the  future 

governed    by    a     blameless     king.       He     even 

regarded   Yahweh   as   a  king    who,    from     his 

throne,  governed  all  the  dwellers  upon  earth; 

and  it  has  been   said,  with    reason,    that    the 

universal  monarchy  of  Assyria  helped   him   to 

imagine  the  universal  monarchy  of  God.* 

Like  Hosea,  he  wished  to  supersede  all  politics 
by  trust  in  Yahweh.  In  734,  the  very  existence 
of  Judah  was  threatened  by  a  coalition  between 
Rezin  King  of  Damascus,  and  Pekah  King  of 
Israel.  By  the  rules  of  common  sense,  the 
kingdom  could  only  be  safe  under  the  protection 
of  Assyria,  and  by  giving  tribute    to   Tiglath- 

-  Smend,  220. 


i6o     The  Religion  of  Israel 

Pileser.  Isaiah  wished  that  there  should  be  no 
dealings  with  him.  By  order  of  Yahweh  he 
presented  himself,  with  "  The-Remnant-Shall- 
Return,"  before  Ahaz,  and  assured  him  that  his 
enemies  could  not  prevail  against  him.  As  a 
guarantee  of  the  divine  word,  he  offered  the 
king  a  choice  of  miracles.  Ahaz,  whose  mind 
was  made  up,  and  who  shrunk  from  seeing  a 
miracle,  evaded  skilfully  by  saying  he  would  not 
tempt  Yahweh.  This  roused  the  anger  of  the 
prophet,  who  predicted  the  near  ruin  of 
Damascus  and  of  Israel,  and  the  laying  waste 
of  Judah.  The  prudent  policy  of  Ahaz  having 
borne  its  fruits,  and  the  threatened  danger 
proving  imaginary  so  far  as  Judah  was  con- 
cerned, Isaiah  recommended  submission  to  the 
King  of  Assyria,  and  resisted  the  plan  of  an 
Egyptian  alliance,  which  was  formed  later  with 
a  view  to  regaining  independence.  Yahweh 
himself  would  destroy  Assyria  after  his  people 
had  been  sufficiently  punished.  Hezekiah  allied 
himself  to  Egypt,  and  revolted  definitely  against 
Sennacherib :  and  Isaiah  blamed  him  for 
wishing  to  be  saved  by  human  means ;  he  gave 
warning  of  a  certain  disaster,  but  asserted  that 
Jerusalem  and  the  temple  would  not  perish. 

' '  Woe  to  them  that  go  down  to  Egypt  for  help  ; 
And  stay  on  horses,  and  trvist  in  chariots, 
Because  they  are  many  ; 


Prophecy  i6i 

"And  in  horsemen  because  they  are  very  strong: 
But  they  look  not  to  the  Holy  One  of  Israel, 
Neither  seek  they  Yahweh.   .   .   . 
Now  the  Egyptians  are  men,  and  not  God  ; 
And  their  horses  flesh,  and  not  spirit. 
And  when  Yahweh  shall  stretch  out  his  hand, 
Both  he  that  helpeth  shall  stumble. 
And  he  that  is  holpen  shall  fall.  .  .  . 
Then  shall  the  Assyrian  fall  with  the  sword. 
Not  of  man  ;    and  the  sword  not  of  men 
Shall  devour  him  .   .   .   Saitli  Yahweh 
Whose  fire  is  in  Zion,  and  his  furnace  in  Jerusalem."* 

Now  it  happened  that  Sennacherib,  victorious, 
and  with  only  Jerusalem  to  take,  was  obliged 
to  retire  into  his  own  country  without  gaining 
the  city ;  and  he  was  satisfied  with  a  tribute, 
which  seems  to  have  been  paid  loyally  until 
the  end  of  the  Assyrian  empire. 

For  once,  the  event  confirmed  the  prophecy; 
and  possibly  it  was  after  the  deliverance  of 
Jerusalem,  and  under  the  influence  of  the 
accomplished  prophecy,  that  the  religious 
reform  took  place,  which  is  attributed  to 
Hezekiah  in  the  Book  of  Kings.  It  is  needless 
to  ask  what  would  have  happened  if  Jerusalem 
had  perished  in  701.  A  prophecy  would  equally 
have  been  realized,  since  Micah,  a  contemporary 
of  Isaiah,  had  said  : — 

*  Isa.  xxxi.  1,  3,  8,  9.     In  the  last  passage,  the  fire  of 
sacrifice  is  meant :  see  xxx.  33. 

12 


i62     The  Religion  of  Israel 

"  Zion  shall  become  a  ploughed  field, 
Jerusalem  shall  be  a  heap  of  ruins, 
And  the  temple  hill  a  high  wood."'-' 

But,  if  Micah  had  been  right,  the  Jahvism  of 
Judah  would  not  have  left  more  trace  in  history 
than  that  of  Israel.  It  remains  that  Hezekiah 
carried  out  a  reformation  of  worship  according 
to  the  wishes,  apparently,  of  the  prophets. 

We  cannot  say  with  confidence  what  was  the 
purpose  of  this  reform ;  as  the  records  which 
we  have  of  it  are  not  contemporary.  Perhaps 
the  king  wished  to  do  in  reality,  though  with 
less  rigour  in  detail,  what  was  done  afterwards 
by  Josiah ;  to  destroy  idolatry,  and  to  cen- 
tralise the  Judsean  worship  in  Jerusalem. 
But  it  is  well  to  notice  that  if  the  reformation 
happened  immediately  after  the  deliverance  of 
the  city,  in  701,  Hezekiah  then  possessed  no 
more  than  his  capital ;  and  we  do  not  know 
when  or  how  the  towns  captured  by  the 
Assyrians  were  restored.  The  most  certain 
and  striking  incident  of  this  purification  of 
worship  was  the  destruction  of  the  brazen 
serpent,  which  had  never  ceased  to  be  wor- 
shipped in  the  temple.  War,  then,  was  declared 
against  images  of  the  deity. 

The  movement  had  no  permanence ;   perhaps 

*'=  Micah  iii.  12. 


Prophecy  163 

because  a  sufficiently  high  sanction  was  not 
attached  to  the  new  state  of  things.  The 
reformation  does  not  seem  to  have  been  autho- 
rized by  any  traditional  record  of  undisputed 
weight,  nor  to  have  been  embodied  after  the 
event  in  a  Law  which  the  prophets  could  back 
up  as  an  expression  of  the  divine  will.  It 
was  the  personal  action  of  Hezekiah  and  his 
spiritual  advisers ;  it  fell  with  the  king  who 
had  supported  it,  and  the  polytheistic  leanings 
which  had  been  shown  slightly  under  Ahaz, 
perhaps  in  consequence  of  the  relations  with 
Assyria,  reappeared  and  triumphed  politically 
under  Manasseh. 


As  the  domination  of  Assyria  continued  to 
extend,  the  almighty  power  of  Yahweh  was 
not  proved  so  clearly.  For  the  first  time, 
probably,  polytheism  was  introduced  into  the 
temple  of  Zion.  Manasseh  admitted  there  the 
worship  of  the  stars,  after  the  manner  of 
Assyria,  and  especially  the  chariot  of  Shamash, 
the  Sun-God ;  and  he  ventured  to  place  the 
"  Queen  of  Heaven "  by  the  side  of  Yahweh. 
The  people  joined  willingly  in  these  novelties ; 
on  the  roofs  of  the  capital,  they  set  up  altars 
to  the  Gods  of  the  sky.  This  invasion  of 
Assyrian  worship  was  not  caused  only  by  the 


164     The  Religion  of  Israel 

private  tastes  of  the  king ;  but  was  due  as  well 
to  the  political  situation  of  the  kingdom,  which 
was  more  strictly  subjected  to  the  kings 
Esarhaddon  and  Assurbannipal,  who  were  for 
long  masters  of  Egypt,  than  it  had  been  to 
Tiglath-Pileser,  Sargon,  and  Sennacherib. 
Assyria  overran  Jerusalem  with  its  armies, 
its  civilization,  and  its  Gods :  Manasseh  and 
his  people  served  the  new  masters,  both  earthly 
and  heavenly.  We  do  not  know  how  the 
worship  of  these  strange  Gods  was  combined 
with  that  of  Yahweh,  who  remained  the 
national  God.  Perhaps  a  kind  of  local  hierarchy 
was  arranged,  in  which  Yahweh  kept  the  first 
place,  and  this  may  not  have  been  without 
influence  upon  the  conceptions  of  the  following 
age ;  perhaps  the  foreign  Gods  may  have  been 
made  into  celestial  spirits,  to  whom  Yahweh 
delegated  the  government  of  the  peoples. 

The  traditions  of  Canaan  were  not  neglected. 
The  sacrifice  of  the  first-born  was  a  custom 
regularly  practised.  If  we  may  believe  the 
prophets,  the  sacrifices  were  made  to  Moloch.  But 
the  same  prophets  make  us  understand  that  those 
who  followed  this  practice  believed  they  were 
honouring  Yahweh.  Certain  critics  are  not 
willing  to  admit  the  antiquity  of  this  custom 
in  Israel ;  and  some  even  challenge  what  the 
Book  of  Kings  relates  of  Ahaz,  who  sacrificed 


Prophecy  165 

the  eldest  of  his  children.  But  Israelite  anti- 
quity did  not  know  our  way  of  estimating 
human  life ;  it  understood  quite  differently 
both  the  rights  of  parents  over  their  children, 
and  the  modes  of  doing  honour  to  the  Gods. 
The  texts  are  not  limited  to  hindering  the 
extension  of  a  practice  abominable  in  itself, 
but  not  more  ridiculous  than  the  sacrifice  of 
cattle.  Jeremiah  believes  himself  compelled  to 
say  that  Yah  well  had  never  ordered  tophet 
to  be  set  up  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  a  place 
consecrated  to  the  sacrifice  of  children  by  fire  ;  * 
therefore  this  worship  -was  connected  with  the 
God  of  Israel.  Ezekiel  seems  to  contradict 
Jeremiah,  but  he  is  more  accurate  when  he 
makes   Yahweh   himself   say : 

"  I  gave  them  statutes  that  were  not  good 
And  judgements  wherein  they  should  not  live  ; 
And  I  polluted  them  in  their  own  gifts 
By  making  them  burn  each  first-born  : 
It  was  to  destroy  them, 
So  that  they  might  know  I  am  Yahweh."  f 

A  favourable  exegesis  can  say  that  the 
prophet  speaks  according  to  the  belief  of  his 
readers,  as  to  the  obligation  of  such  sacrifices ; 
but  it  is  certainly  he  himself  who  judges  the 
custom  as  bad,  and  attributes  it  to  Yahweh  as 

*  Jer.  vii.  31,  xix.  5.  t  Ezek.  xx.  25-6. 


1 66     The  Religion  of  Israel 

such.  The  precision  of  his  language  raises  the 
suspicion  that  a  text  existed  in  the  Law, 
containing  the  traditional  formula  on  this 
matter.  And  such  a  text  did  exist.  We  read 
in  The  Book  of  the  Covenant :  "  Thou  shalt  not 
*'  delay  to  offer  the  first-fruits  of  thy  threshing- 
"  floor  and  wine  press.  Thou  shalt  give  me  the 
"  first-born  of  thy  sons ;  and  thou  shalt  do  the 
*'  same  with  thy  cow  and  thy  sheep.  He  shall 
"  be  seven  days  with  his  mother  ;  and  on  the 
"  eighth  day  thou  shalt  give  him  to  me."  *  The 
text  is  clear,  and  the  assimilation  to  the  first- 
born of  the  flock  is  sufficiently  eloquent. 
Doubtless,  the  compilers  of  the  Pentateuch 
interpreted  this  order  by  others,  where  there  is 
a  question  of  ransom ;  but  the  text  in  itself 
does  not  provide  for  this  substitution,  and  one 
may  add  excludes  it.  The  formula  of  the  oldest 
decalogue,  quoted  previously :  ''  Every  first-born 
belongs  to  me,"  f  had  originally  the  same  inter- 
pretation ;  and  the  adapter  of  the  passage 
understands  it  indifferently  of  men  and  cattle, 
though  he  is  careful  to  note  the  obligation  of 
ransom  for  men. 

It  should  be  noted,  too,  that  the  combination 
of  ransom  or  of  a  substituted  offering  could  only 
originate  in  minds  to  which  the  notion  of  im- 
molating  was   familiar   and    natural.     Nothing 
"  Exod.  xxii.  29-30.  f  Exod.  xxxiv.  19. 


Prophecy  167 

is  gained  by  saying  that  the  regulation  which 
is  admitted  for  the  produce  of  cattle  was  only 
applied  systematically  to  man  as  a  reminder 
of  duty.  The  very  assimilation  reveals  a 
mentality  still  very  near  to  that  of  people 
who  found  it  equally  needful  and  believed  it 
equally  expedient  to  sacrifice  to  Yahweh  their 
first  child  as  to  offer  him  the  first-born  of 
their  cow  or  their  goat. 

We  have  already  considered  the  historical 
bearing  of  the  legends  about  Jephtha's  daughter 
and  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac.  The  failure  to 
protest  among  the  prophets  of  the  eighth 
century  cannot  be  alleged  as  disproving  the 
custom  of  sacrificing  children  in  their  time ; 
for  they  may  have  been  less  shocked  by  it 
than  we  are  willing  to  admit.  Hosea  seems 
to  allude  to  it.*  Micah  f  speaks  of  the  sacrifice 
of  a  first-born  as  of  a  thing  just  as  normal 
as  the  sacrifice  of  a  calf  or  a  lamb :  he  puts 
it  aside  on  precisely  the  same  grounds,  by  saying 
that  it  is  necessary  to  practice  righteousness. 
Isaiah  himself,  who  must,  it  is  said,  have  pro- 
tested, if  Ahaz  had  really  sacrificed  his  son ; 
(and   may    he    not    have   done   it  without   the 

*  Hosea  xiii.  2,  a  dubious  text. 

+  Micah  vi.  7.  The  passage  is  not  less  striking  even  if 
it  be  by  another  prophet,  a  contemporary  of  Manasseh,  as 
some  allow. 


1 68     The  Religion  of  Israel 

fact  of  his  protest  coining  down  to  us  ?)  Isaiah 
speaks  of  tophet  as  a  man  who  is  not  other- 
wise scandalized  by  it :  he  wishes  to  see  all 
the  Assyrians  burnt  in  it  as  a  splendid  holo- 
caust to  the  Holy  One  of  Israel : 

' '  A  tophet  is  prepared  of  old  ; 
Yea  for  the  king  it  is  made  ready. 
He  hath  made  it  deep  and  large, 
Straw  and  wood  in  masses  : 

The  breath  of  Yahweh,  like  a  sulphurous  flood, 
Shall  kindle  it."^'^ 

From  this  passage  it  may  be  inferred  that 
the  tophet  existed  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah, 
and  doubtless  long  before.  Isaiah  does  not 
shrink  from  the  pyre  of  Moloch  being  kindled 
by  Yahweh  himself;  and  this  approximation 
would  be  impossible,  even  metaphorically  or 
jestingly,  if  Yahweh  were  not  Moloch.  But 
Isaiah  knows  "  Yahweh-Melek." 

Though  the  state  of  the  documents  does  not 
allow  us  to  affirm,  it  does  at  least  enable  us 
to  conjecture,  that  the  tophet  of  the  valley  of 
Hinnom,  the  future  gehenna,  was  a  holy  place 
in  Jerusalem  before  the  conquest  of  the  city 
by  David ;  and  that  human  sacrifices  were 
offered  there,  especially  the  sacrifices  of  children 
and   first-born,   to  the    God   of  the  city,  to  its 

'''  Isa.  XXX.  33. 


Prophecy  169 

Melek.  Yahweh  would  have  inherited  the 
divine  title,  the  sanctuary,  and  the  sacrifices, 
without  however  a  complete  loss  of  all  memory 
of  what  the  original  worship  of  the  place  had 
been.  In  the  time  of  Manasseh,  this  worship 
was  more  flourishing  than  ever ;  and  as  the 
growth  of  polytheism  provoked  a  Jahvist 
reaction,  the  strongest  known  since  the  settle- 
ment in  Canaan,  that  reaction  condemned  the 
worship,  perhaps  for  the  first  time  in  Judaea : 
it  was  rendered  to  the  ancient  3Ielek,  and  re- 
jected for  Yahweh. 

Manasseh's  reign  was  long ;  not  less  long 
was  the  supremacy  of  polytheism :  it  lasted, 
too,  under  the  son  of  Manasseh,  Amon,  who 
reigned  only  two  years,  and  perished  by  a 
violent  death.  Following  a  system  of  relative 
compulsion,  the  syncretism  of  these  kings  was, 
it  may  be  said,  persecuting.  The  prophets  had 
become  too  exacting  and  bold  to  keep  silent: 
it  is  hardly  surprising  that  their  freedom  of 
speech  cost  some  of  them  their  lives.  Never- 
theless history  has  not  recorded  the  name  of 
any  such  martyr;  and  the  prophetic  literature 
does  not  show  a  single  fragment  which  can 
be  attributed  with  certainty  to  that  vexed 
period.  It  was,  perhaps,  during  these  times 
of  humiliation  that  the  servants  of  Yahweh 
grasped  the  necessity  for  a  code  which  might 


lyo     The  Religion  of  Israel 

order  the  whole  religious  life  of  persons, 
localities,  and  of  the  nation  itself.  Thus  might 
be  explained  the  origin  of  Deuteronomy,  and 
the  great  movement  which  caused  its  invention^ 
in  the  days  of  Josiah. 

§   4 

This  book  was  found  in  the  temple,  as  we 
know,  by  the  priest  Hilkiah,  in  621 ;  was  pre- 
sented to  the  king  as  the  Law  of  Yahweh, 
which  Moses  had  promulgated  before  his  death, 
in  the  plains  of  Moab ;  was  accepted  by  Josiah 
as  a  divine  revelation,  and  used  by  him  to  carry 
out  a  more  extensive  and  minute  reform  than 
any  which  had  been  ventured  on  before.  Every- 
thing was  foreseen  ;  the  execution  was  prompt ; 
and  it  was  indeed  a  new  system  which  was 
inaugurated  in  place  of  the  old.  The  story  in 
Kings  leaves  not  the  smallest  doubt  as  to  this.* 

It  is  certain  that  the  matter  of  this  Law  was 
for  the  most  part  new  to  Josiah  and  his  con- 
temporaries. If  the  pious  king  had  known 
the  wishes  of  Yahweh  earlier,  he  would  have 
carried  them  out ;  he  did  not  think  he  was 
offending  Yahweh  by  not  forbidding  in  the 
high  places  a  worship  that  had  been  always 
practised,  except  perhaps  during  a  few  years 
in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah ;  by  tolerating,  more 
"  2  Kings  xxii.  2-13. 


Prophecy  171 

or  less,  the  worship  of  strange  gods,  as  almost 
all  the  kings  had  done  since  Solomon.  If 
this  existence  of  a  Law  of  Moses  were  not 
unknown,  if  it  were  admitted  that  the  priests 
were  its  holders  and  interpreters,  then  the  whole 
bearing  of  that  which  Hilkiah  said  he  had 
found  had  been  ignored.  Besides,  though  the 
Book  of  Kings  speaks  of  a  Law  of  Yahweh, 
it  does  not  say  that  Law  had  been  written  by- 
Moses  ;  still  less  does  it  imply  that  the  book 
invented  by  Hilkiah  was  the  original  manuscript 
of  a  Mosaic  work,  stored  away  for  centuries 
and  at  last  forgotten  near  the  ark. 

It  has  been  guessed  that  Deuteronomy  was 
written  under  Manasseh,  forgotten  in  the 
temple,  and  found  accidentally  a  few  years 
later.  This  hypothesis  is  unlikely,  because  the 
roll  could  not  have  remained  unnoticed  in  the 
shrine  of  Yahweh  ;  and  the  text  of  Kings 
does  not  lead  us  to  suppose  that  it  was  found 
in  any  out-building  of  the  sacred  edifice.  If 
one  wishes  in  this  afPair  to  distinguish  between 
deceivers  and  deceived,  it  is  a  very  small  matter 
whether  Hilkiah  and  Shaphan,  the  official  of 
Josiah  who  brought  the  book  to  him,  were 
the  first  dupes  instead  of  being  the  first 
tricksters.  Deuteronomy,  either  the  first  draft, 
or  the  fundamental  document  of  the  book 
which  has  come  to  us  under  that  name,  must 


172     The  Religion  of  Israel 

have  been  written  to  be  deposited  in  the 
temple :  its  discovery  cannot  have  been  acci- 
dental. From  a  literary  point  of  view,  it  was 
like  a  new  edition  of  the  old  texts,  especially 
of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  worked  out  with 
an  eye  to  existing  needs.  The  author,  speaking 
in  the  name  of  Moses,  wrote  what  Moses  would 
have  said,  what  he  would  not  have  failed  to 
teach,  in  the  present  circumstances :  he  con- 
sidered his  work  as  an  oracle  of  Yahweh,  and 
undoubtedly  he  could  not  conceive  of  it  other- 
wise. The  readers  for  whom  the  book  was 
intended  would  have  been  unable,  too,  to  con- 
sider it  good  and  true  unless  it  had  been  pre- 
sented to  them  in  this  way;  it  seemed  also 
perfectly  simple  and  guileless  to  refer  it  back 
to  Yahweh,  its  principal  author.  In  the  very 
probable  case  that  the  editor  plotted  with 
Hilkiah  to  deposit  the  precious  writing  in 
the  shrine,  that  which  seems  to  us,  and  which 
would  be  for  us,  a  trick  might  be  done  without 
the  personages  in  question  having  the  least 
consciousness  of  the  fraud  which  they  were 
committing  against  the  people  and  the  king. 
The  divine  threats,  which  made  so  great  an 
impression  upon  the  mind  of  Josiah,  were 
similar  to  those  which  the  prophets  had  been 
accustomed  to  make  use  of  in  the  name  of 
Yahweh. 


Prophecy  173 

The  mode  of  promulgation  is  worth  noticing. 
"The  king   sent,  and  they  gathered  unto  him 
"  all   the  elders  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem.     And 
"the  king  went   up  to  the  house  of    Yahweh, 
"  and    all   the  men   of   Judah   and  all   the   in- 
"  habitants   of    Jerusalem    with    him,   and   the 
"  priests,  and  the  prophets,  and  all  the  people, 
"  both  small  and  great :  and  he  read   in   their 
"ears    all     the     words     of    the    book    of    the 
"covenant   which   was   found   in   the   house  of 
"  Yahweh.      And  the  king  stood  by  the   pillar, 
"and   made    a    covenant    before     Yahweh,    to 
"  walk   after    Yahweh,   and   to   keep    his   com- 
"  mandants      and     his      testimonies,     and    his 
"statutes,  with  all  his  heart,  and  all  his  soul, 
"  to  confirm  the  words  of  this   covenant,   that 
"were    written     in    this     book:     and    all    the 
"people    stood    to    the    covenant."*      Nothing 
shows  better  the  national  character  of  Jahvism. 
Everything   was   done   as    at   the   accession   of 
a  king :  he,  on  taking  possession  of  the  throne, 
published  the  charter   of   his  reign,  which    his 
subjects,   represented    by    the    leaders    of    the 
people,   swore    to    observe.     Josiah   announced 
the    charter    of    Yahweh ;    then    he    swore,    in 
his  own  name  and  in  the  name  of  his  people, 
to  be  faithful  to  it,  so*  that  the  whole  nation 
was   bound   by   an    engagement   with   its    God 
"^^  2  Kings  xxiii.  1-3. 


174     The  Religion  of  Israel 

to    everything    which    it  had   pleased   him   to 
ordain. 

There  were  precedents  for  this  in  the  texts, 
if  not  in  fact.  The  Jahvist  decalogue  and  the 
old  Book  of  the  Covenant  were  described  as 
agreements  of  this  kind ;  we  do  not  know 
whether  they  were  ratified  under  the  same 
conditions.  The  Book  of  Kings  mentions  a 
sworn  agreement  for  extirpating  the  worship 
of  Baal,  at  the  accession  of  Josiah ;  but  it 
would  be  rash  to  assimilate  that  proposal  to 
either  one  or  other  of  these  instances.  The 
most  pertinent  passage  is,  perhaps,  that  in 
which  we  see  Joshua  assembling  the  children 
of  Israel  at  Shechem,  before  his  death ;  and, 
after  reminding  them  of  Yahweh's  favours,  as 
well  as  of  his  requirements,  putting  before 
them  the  choice  between  this  exacting  God 
and  the  Gods  which  their  fathers  had  wor- 
shipped "  beyond  the  river,"  or  the  Gods  of 
the  Amorites,  the  ancient  Gods  of  the  country  : 
and  the  people  declares  that  it  wishes  to  serve 
Yah  well,  and  is  eager  to  reject  the  other  Gods. 
Then  Joshua  made  a  covenant  with  the  people, 
gave  it  laws  and  ordinances,  and  set  up  a  pillar 
to  be  a  witness  of  the  agreement  which  had 
been  undertaken.*     Now  that   stone  happened 

'''  Joshua  xxiv.  The  narrative  belongs  to  the  Elohistic 
source  of  the  Hexateuch,  but  the  editing  is  not  perhaps 
much  earlier  than  Deuteronomy. 


Prophecy    -  175 

to  be  under  the  sacred  tree  of  Moreh,  whose 
deity  was  most  probably  none  other  than 
El-Berith,  "the  God  of  the  Covenant,"  the 
ancient  deity  of  Shechem.  It  was,  then,  from 
the  old  sanctuary  of  Shechem,  where  Yahweh 
identified  himself  with  "the  God  of  the 
Covenant,"  that  the  notion  of  an  alliance  may 
have  come,  as  well  as  some  of  the  oldest  texts 
in  which  the  regulations  imposed  on  Israel  by 
Yahweh  are  summarized.*  The  solemn  forms 
of  agreement  undertaken  by  Josiah  and  his 
people  create  somehow  a  perpetual  and  sacred 
obligation,  and  the  violation  of  it  enables  all 
the  national  misfortunes  to  be  explained  as  a 
just  vengeance  of  heaven. 

This  Law  of  Yahweh  was  not  a  ritual,  nor 
a  volume  of  doctrine,  but  a  complete  manual 
of  theocratic  government.  The  will  of  the 
God  regulated  everything  autocratically:  re- 
ligion, policy,  morality,  social  and  international 
relations.  The  supreme  unity  of  the  God  of 
Israel,  if  not  his  absolute  monotheism,  was 
formulated  in  the  clearest  terms,  and  every 
practical  consequence  was  deduced  from  it. 

The  centralization  of  public  worship  was 
established  in  principle,  and  at  once,  by  the 
prohibition    to  sacrifice   outside   the   temple   of 

*  Several  critics  think  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  was 
formerly  united  to  Joshua  xxiv.  in  the  Elohistic  soiu^ce. 


176     The  Religion  of  Israel 

Jerusalem,  "  the  place  which  Yahweli  has  chosen 
to    put   his    name    there."  *       Formerly    every 
domestic   animal    killed    for    ordinary    use,   or 
for  family  rejoicings,   was  a   kind   of   sacrifice. 
As  a  proof,  we  may  recall  a  well-known  episode 
in  the  wars  of  Saul  against  the  Philistines :  f  the 
people  had  taken  many  oxen  and  sheep  in  the 
enemy's  camp,  and,  being  famished  after  a  long 
battle,  they  killed  the  beasts  and  eat  them  on 
the  spot.     Great  was  the  emotion  of  Saul  when 
he    learned   this   profanation ;    he  had   a   large 
stone  brought,  which  became  an  altar,  and  on 
it  was  poured  out  the  blood  of  all  the  animals  to 
be  eaten.     According   to   Deuteronomy,  as  the 
killing  for  sacrifice  might  only  be  done  hence- 
forth in  Jerusalem,  it  is  allowed  that  domestic 
animals,  oxen,  sheep,  goats,  may  be  killed  for 
ordinary  use,  but  without  any  sacrifice,  speaking 
strictly  :  care  is  taken,   however,  to   point  out 
that  the  animal  must  always  be  bled,  and  that 
the  blood  must  be  poured  out  with  certain  pre- 
cautions,  so  that  even  in  ordinary   butchering 
there  remained  a  notion  of  primitive  sacrifice, 
and  of  the  portion  due  to  Yahweh.     It  was  a 
suppression  of  sacrifices  by  family  and  clan  ;  if 
private  sacrifices  were  still  allowed    they  could 
only  take  place  in  the  national  sanctuary,  where 
they   must  be   much  less  frequent,   and   where 
"*'  Deut.  xii.  5.  f  1  Sam.  xiv.  32-5. 


Prophecy  177 

they    were    bound    to    lose    a    part    of   their 
primitive  character. 

The  priesthood  was  organized  strictly :  all  the 
Levites  who  ministered  in  shrines  of  Yahweh 
outside  the  capital  were  affiliated  to  the  clergy 
of  Jerusalem.  The  carrying  out  of  this  measure 
would  not  have  been  unattended  with  difficulty, 
if  there  had  been  time  to  apply  it.  After  the 
exile,  the  priestly  Levites  of  Deuteronomy,  who 
had  formed  only  one  class,  became  both  priests 
and  Levites :  the  former  being  the  descendants 
of  Zadok,  that  is  members  of  the  family  who 
were  hereditary  occupants  of  the  Jerusalem 
priesthood,  and  the  descendants  of  other  sacer- 
dotal families  who  were  able  to  prove  their 
right ;  and  the  latter,  who  became  henceforth 
a  subordinate  class,  to  which  lower  ministrations 
were  entrusted,  were  descended  from  families 
which  had  formerly  served  local  sanctuaries, 
and  which  had  resigned  or  been  refused  the 
sacerdotal  rank. 

From  a  moral  stand-point,  the  Deuteronomistic 
legislation  shows  the  progress  made,  by  the 
influence  of  the  prophets,  in  the  ideal  con- 
ception of  society.  Though  religiously  intoler- 
ant, as  it  was  forced  to  be  to  attain  its  end, 
it  nevertheless  exhales  an  humanitarian  spirit, 
a  tenderness  for  the  poor,  a  passion  for  justice. 
It  was   not  in  reality  a   political  code,  though 

13 


1 78     The  Religion  of  Israel 

it  affected  every  interest  in  the  national  life : 
it  was,  rather,  a  teaching  for  all  religious 
consciences,  from  the  sovereign  downwards. 
One  may,  in  short,  estimate  the  progress  made 
since  the  days  of  Elijah  by  the  contents  of  the 
new  decalogue,  reproduced  in  Exodus,  before 
the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  and  in  Deuteronomy.* 
The  two  versions  proceed  from  a  single  source, 
probably  a  little  earlier  than  the  reformation 
of  Josiah,  and  which  aimed  at  improving  the 
old  Jahvist  decalogue,  or  rather  at  superseding 
it.  The  ten  commandments  must  have  been 
thus  formulated  originally : 

I  am  Yahweh  thy   God,  who   brought  thee  out  of  the 

land  of  Egypt,  the  house  of  bondage. 
Thou  shalt  have  no  other  God  but  me. 
Thou  shalt  not  make  idols  for  thyself. 
Thou  shalt  not  utter  vainly  the  name  of  Yahweh  thy 

God. 
Remember  the  seventh  day,  to  sanctify  it. 
Honoiu?  thy  father  and  thy  mother. 
Thou  shalt  not  kill. 
Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery. 
Thou  shalt  not  steal. 

Thou  shalt  not  be  a  false  witness  against  thy  neighbour. 
Thou  shalt  not  covet  anything  of  thy  neighbour's. 

The    absolute    prohibition    of    divine   images 
shows  a  progress  in  the  Jahvist  reaction.     The 

""  Exod.  XX.  1-17  ;  Deut.  v.  6-21. 


Prophecy  179 

absence  of  any  strictly  ritual  commands  is 
another  proof.  The  substitution  of  moral 
obligations  for  ritual  practices  is  most  signifi- 
cant. The  majority  of  these  regulations  had 
been  long  accepted,  at  any  rate  as  between  mem- 
bers of  the  same  clan  and  between  Israelites. 
But  the  novelty  consisted  in  generalizing  their 
obligations,  and  in  presenting  them  as  the 
genuine  service  which  Yahweh  demanded.  It 
is  the  application  of  the  prophets'  maxim: 
justice  rather  than  sacrifice. 

But,  as  a  religion  lives  by  ritual  traditions  and 
not  only  by  moral  precepts,  the  established 
worship  had  to  be  reckoned  with.  It  had  been 
maintained  by  so  regulating  it  as  to  take  away 
everything  which  was  stultified  by  the  ideal 
of  the  prophets.  Deuteronomy  was  a  law  of 
priests  drafted  by  prophetical  inspiration.  The 
reformation  could  not  have  succeeded  without 
the  help  of  the  Jerusalem  priests,  and  to  them 
the  centralization  of  worship  could  not  be  dis- 
pleasing. In  the  compromise  between  ritual 
and  spiritual  religion,  the  priest  was  bound  to 
gain  more  than  the  prophet ;  and  it  may  even 
be  said  that  the  book  itself  which  canonized 
the  essential  matters  in  the  prophetic  teaching 
was  a  preparation  for  the  end  of  prophecy.  As 
soon  as  the  will  of  Yahweh  was  fixed  in 
writing,   there  was  no   more  need  to  evoke  it 


i8o     The  Religion  of  Israel 

perpetually  by  inspired  men :  the  book  was 
always  there.  And  Deuteronomy,  which  re- 
cognised the  prophets  as  channels  of  Yahweh, 
placed  them  under  a  rule  which  could  not 
but  impede  their  action :  the  prophet,  whose 
prediction  did  not  come  to  pass,  must  die. 
We  may  believe,  however,  that  no  prophet 
was  executed  for  this  crime.  What  killed  the 
institution  was  that  the  Torah  of  Yahweh, 
which  the  prophets  had  almost  taken  away 
from  the  priests,  was  submitted  again  to  the 
latter  by  this  book ;  until  by  the  doctors  of 
the  book  it  was  taken  away  finally  from  the 
priests. 

According  to  the  Book  of  Kings,  Josiah  not 
only  reformed   the   popular    religion,  abolished 
the  tophet  in  the  vale  of  Hinnom,  and  destroyed 
all    places   of  worship   outside   Jerusalem,    but 
he  went  and  profaned  the  holy  place  of  Bethel, 
in  the  ancient  territory  of   the  northern  king- 
dom.     He  even  took  measures  to  eradicate  all 
idolatry   from    private   worship.     Thus   he    re- 
moved the  teraphim,  a  species  of  domestic  idol, 
of  which  the  usage  had  hitherto  been  common, 
and  uncensured  as  it  would  seem  by  the   pro- 
phets.    The   teraphira  were  probably  a   relic  of 
spirit  -  worship :     they    were    the    kindly     genii 
of   a  house ;   but  there  is   no   proof   that   they 
were  ancestral  spirits.     Their  images  must  have 


Prophecy  1 8 1 

been  fairly  big,  since  Michal,  to  conceal  the 
flight  of  David  from  the  messengers  of  Saul, 
had  put  the  household  teraphim  into  her 
husband's  bed.  Hosea  speaks  of  teraphim  as 
common  objects  of  worship.  In  the  sanctu- 
aries, the  teraphhn  went  usually  with  the  ephod, 
the  oracular  image  or  instrument  of  Yahweh. 
Deuteronomy  does  not  mention  the  teraphim 
specially ;  but  it  is  natural  that  they  should 
have  been  included  in  the  general  condemnation 
of  divine  images.  We  can  see  by  this  instance 
that  ancient  Jahvism  was  deeply  tinged  with 
beliefs  and  practices  analogous  to  those  of  the 
pagan  religions,  and  which  came  from  the  same 
source,  namely  spirit-worship.  Its  purification 
could  not  have  happened  in  a  day. 

The  reformation  of  Josiah  had  no  immediate 
success,  because  it  did  not  alter  the  spirit  of 
the  nation,  and  it  did  not  last  long.  The  pious 
king  was  able  to  remove  the  public  monuments 
of  alien  worships,  the  altars  and  the  idols.  He 
was  able  to  interfere,  more  or  less  completely, 
with  the  traditional  sacrifices  on  the  high  places. 
He  could  even  celebrate  the  feasts  in  honour 
of  Yahweh  as  they  had  never  been  witnessed 
before  ;  so  that  all  the  children  of  Judah  seemed 
to  come  together,  and  to  be  occupied  wholly 
with  their  God,  without  any  idolatry  or  de- 
bauch  sullying   their  homage.     But,   though   a 


1 82      The  Religion  of  Israel 

certain    external    order    had  been  established, 
minds    were    not    regenerated.      The    mass    of 
the   population,    which    was    idolatrous    under 
Manasseh  and  Amon,  had  not  been  taken  with 
a  sudden  fervour  of  monotheism  because  a  book 
of    the    Law  had    been    found   in   the    temple ; 
because  Josiah  had  chosen,  conformably  to  that 
book  and  to  the  exhortations  of    the  prophets, 
to  honour  Yahweh  in  such   or  such  a  manner, 
and  to  the  exclusion  of  any  other  God.     It   is 
probable    that    the    people    at    first,   like    the 
king  himself,  had  been  frightened  by  the  threats 
contained    in   the   book,  and    which   had   been 
brought  home  to  them  by  current  politics  :  they 
may  have  believed,  too,  that  they  had  recovered 
their   ancestral   religion,   and   that  they  would 
earn  the  favour  of  Yahweh  by  carrying  it  out. 
But  these  impressions   were   not  lasting.     The 
idolatrous   spirit  was  repressed  for  only  a  few 
years,   and    it    continued   to   indulge   itself    by 
private    superstitions.      The    true     worship    of 
Yahweh,  the  love  of    his  glory  and  of   justice, 
which      Deuteronomy     aimed     at     implanting, 
flourished  only  in  a  weak  minority.     Then  there 
came  the  catastrophe  of  Megiddo,  which  seemed 
to    ruin   for   ever    the    experiment    of    Josiah. 
The  religious  establishment  which  he  had  tried 
to  found   could   only   be  solidified   by  time,  by 
sustained  effort,  and  by  the  help  of  favouring 


Prophecy  183 

circumstances.  The  sad  end  of  the  pious  king 
who,  strong  in  his  faithfulness  to  his  God, 
was  driven  audaciously  to  meet  the  Egyptian 
army,  and  who  fell  a  victim  to  his  confidence, 
through  unwillingness  to  treat  with  foreigners, 
seemed  to  be  the  condemnation  of  his  work. 
Jeremiah  himself,  who  loved  him,  seldom  recalls 
his  memory ;  because  this  model  of  princes  had 
become  through  his  death  an  argument  against 
God.  There  was  no  return,  however,  to  the 
idolatrous  excesses  of  Manasseh's  reign :  the 
worship  of  the  temple  remained  pure ;  but 
every  one  recovered  his  liberty,  and  foreign 
worships  had  a  renewed  freedom  of  action. 
There  was  not,  therefore,  less  confidence  in 
Yahweh,  and  the  indestructibility  of  the  temple 
was  believed  in.  That  is  why  they  ventured 
twice  to  oppose  Nebuchadnezzar,  though  relying 
too  upon  Egypt. 

Deuteronomy  and  Josiali  had  travailled  only 
for  the  future :  the  volume,  in  fact,  remained, 
with  a  remembrance  of  the  experience  gained 
by  it;  and  it  never  had  to  be  found  again, 
because  it  was  never  suffered  to  be  lost.  The 
faithful  servitors  of  Yahweh  knew  whence  they 
could  draw  upon  the  Law  of  their  God  :  they 
knew,  too,  that  that  Law  had  been  actually 
practised ;  and  they  were  able  to  discern  what 
was  still  wanting  for  the  perfect  regulation  of 


184     The  Religion  of  Israel 

Israel's  life  as  the  people  of  God.  The  point 
had  been  gained  that  the  religion  of  Israel 
was  founded  upon  a  revelation  unique  in 
history ;  that  Israel  was,  by  election  of  the 
true  God,  a  people  promoted  above  all  others ; 
that  even  its  past  was  unique  by  reason  of  the 
wonders  which  Yahweh  had  wrought  for  its 
necessities,  and  in  its  favour.  By  managing 
to  place  the  Jews  outside  the  ordinary  ways 
followed  by  nations  destined  to  survive, 
Deuteronomy  founded  Judaism ;  because  it 
prepared  the  organization  of  a  religious  com- 
munity whose  existence  did  not  depend  on 
the  life  of  a  Judsean  state. 

§  5 

If  the  religious  history  of  Israel,  in  the  years 
which  immediately  preceded  the  taking  of  Jeru- 
salem by  Nebuchadnezzar,  is  not  comprised 
entirely  in  the  life  and  activity  of  Jeremiah, 
at  any  rate  the  fortunes  and  the  writings  of 
that  prophet  give  us  the  truest  notion  of  it. 
Jeremiah,  even  before  the  death  of  Josiah,  did 
not  believe  in  the  conversion  of  the  people.  He 
did  not  cease  to  foretell  the  ruin  of  the  nation, 
even  at  the  risk  of  drawing  upon  hiraself  the 
vengeance  of  the  sovereigns  and  the  hatred  of 
the  mob.  He  was  frankly  unpopular,  as  Isaiah 
never  was,  and  he  said  everything  to  make  him 


Prophecy  185 

so.  No  one  understood  him.  Jehoiakin  loathed 
him.  Zedekiah  venerated  him,  so  far  as  he  did 
not  fear  him;  but  he  did  not  venture  to  pro- 
tect him  openly  against  his  enemies.  It  was  all 
because  Jeremiah  foresaw  a  terrible  affliction, 
even  for  the  small  number  of  righteous  persons, 
and  a  ruin  without  measure  for  the  majority, 
which  were  superstitious  and  gross,  blind  and 
selfish.  He  mocked  at  the  prophets  of  good  for- 
tune, who  flattered  the  people;  and  he  main- 
tained that  sinister  forebodings  were  the  only 
true  ones,  that  one  cannot  be  a  messenger  of 
Yahweh  by  saying  that  Judah  will  not  be 
destroyed. 

As  these  miserable  auguries  afflicted  him  who 
drew  them,  so  he  suffered  deeply  from  the 
opposition  which  he  encountered ;  and  as  he 
could  only  encourage  himself  by  the  sense  of 
duty,  he  must  have  seen  and  felt  the  incor- 
rigible obstinacy  of  those  whom  he  was  trying 
to  snatch  from  the  divine  judgment.  He  was 
convinced  that  a  long  trial  was  necessary  to 
purify  men's  minds.  He  affirmed  that  scarcely 
any  one,  except  himself,  understood  the  inevit- 
able and  salutary  nature  of  the  trial.  He  saw 
coming  the  ruin  of  his  nation  ;  and  was  so  con- 
vinced that  he  seemed  to  desire  it.  The  captives 
of  Babylon  seemed  to  him  in  a  better  way  than 
the  Jews  left  in  Palestine  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 


1 86     The  Religion  of  Israel 

and  it  was  in  fact  that  band  of  exiles  which 
saved  the  religion  of  the  prophets.  He  did 
not  see  the  restoration  of  religion ;  and  the 
Jews  who  took  him  into  Egypt  were  by  no 
means  obedient  to  his  words.  Whatever  his 
actual  end,  he  was  the  martyr  of  his  destiny ; 
because  he  strove  all  his  life  for  a  cause  that 
perished,  so  to  speak,  in  his  hands ;  and  if  he 
never  ceased  to  believe  in  the  triumph  of  God, 
he  only  experienced  for  himself  the  bitterness 
of  defeat. 

His  attitude  to  the  reformation  of  Josiah  is 
obscure  in  the  history.  He  seems  to  have  had 
little  or  no  part  in  it,  to  have  expected  nothing 
from  it,  to  have  been  dissatisfied  by  it.  Inter- 
preters are  not  agreed  about  the  meaning  which 
should  be  given  to  a  passage  in  his  prophecies, 
when  he  says  : 

"Even  the  stork  in   the  heaven  knoweth  her  appointed 
times, 
And    the     turtle,     and     the    swallow    and    the     crane 

observe  the  times  of  their  coming  ; 
But  my  people  know  not  the  ordinance  of  Yahweh. 
How  can  you  say  We  are  wise, 
And  the  law  of  Yahweh  is  with  us? 
But,  behold,  the  false  pen  of  the  scribes 
Hath  wrought  falsely."* 

Certainly  this  is  little  flattering,  on  any  hypo- 
*  Jer.  viii.  7-8. 


Prophecy  187 

thesis,  to  the  written  Law.  The  prophecy 
may  have  been  uttered  before  the  publication 
of  Deuteronomy;  but  it  was  not  recorded, 
probably,  until  long  after,  and  the  language 
of  the  prophet  is  very  difficult  to  explain, 
if  he  recognised  any  writing  whatever  as 
the  Law  of  Yahweh.  Many  have  refused 
to  think  that  he  could  treat  as  a  fraud 
the  publication  of  the  book  found  by  Hil- 
kiah.  But  it  is  not  precisely  the  literary 
forgery,  nor  the  artifice  of  its  discovery,  which 
he  thus  appreciates :  it  is  the  actual  matter 
of  all  the  received  texts,  which  seems  to  him 
either  to  correspond  imperfectly  with  the  will 
of  Yahweh,  or  to  order  things  contrary  to  it. 
Jeremiah  appears  to  be  acquainted  with  no 
other  Law  than  the  teaching  of  the  prophets. 
He  judges  the  Torah  of  the  priests  severely, 
and  Deuteronomy  may  have  been  for  him,  as 
it  is  really  in  many  ways,  a  priestly  law.  The 
man  who  could  make  Yahweh  say,  "  I  spake  not 
"unto  your  fathers,  nor  commanded  them  in 
"  the  day  that  I  brought  them  out  of  the  land 
"of  Egypt,  concerning  burnt  offerings  or  sac- 
orifices:  but  this  thing  I  commanded  them 
"saying.  Hearken  unto  my  voice,  and  I  will 
"be  your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  my  people,"* 
may  well    have    disapproved    a    regulation   of 

'•'  Jer.  vii.  22-3. 


1 88     The  Religion  of  Israel 

worship  which  was  alleged  to  have  been  pro- 
mulgated in  the  land  of  Moab.  Even  the  cen- 
tralization of  worship  at  Jerusalem  would  not 
appeal  much  to  the  prophet  who  never  ceased 
to  announce  the  approaching  ruin  of  the  town 
and  temple.  The  nabis  who  helped  the  refor- 
mation were  those  rather  who,  like  Isaiah, 
believed  the  inviolability  of  Zion.  They  were 
the  nationalist  and  optimistic  prophets,  whom 
Jeremiah  treated  as  false  prophets,  although 
they  might  be  as  sincere  as  himself  in  their 
convictions. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  to  secure  the  future  of 
Jahvism,  it  was  not  enough  to  criticise  exist- 
ing abuses  according  to  the  standard  of  a  pure 
religion.  Religions,  in  history,  are  not  theories, 
nor  sentiment,  nor  mystical  aspirations,  but  the  \ 
traditions  of  social  life  guaranteed  by  the  con-  \ 
secration  of  a  ritual.  A  spirit  animates  such  I 
institutions  ;  but  the  institutions  give  con- 
sistency to  the  spirit,  and  keep  it  in  touch 
with  life.  It  has  been  said  often  that  the 
religion  of  the  prophets  was  materialized,  nar- 
rowed, and  lowered  by  the  Law.  Properly 
speaking,  a  religion  of  the  prophets  has  never 
existed  ;  any  more  than  a  religion  of  Jesus  has 
existed ;  but  there  was  a  large  and  strenuous 
effort  to  raise  the  worship  of  Israel  towards 
an  ever-growing  perfection  in  all  that  concerns 


Prophecy  189 

religious  belief,  the  moral  sense,  and  social 
justice.  So  far  as  that  effort  tended  to  disen- 
gage itself  from  institutions,  and  to  recognise 
no  law  but  personal  inspiration,  it  was  lost,  and 
could  only  lose  itself  in  the  void.  In  so  far  as 
it  was  embodied  in  an  institution,  it  lived  and 
worked.  Jeremiah  represented  the  pure  spirit 
of  prophetic  Jahvism.  It  was  the  written 
Law,  that  he  despised,  which  saved  out  of  his 
generous  dreams  all  that  was  able  to  be  utilised 
by  the  future  time. 


JUDAISM 


CHAPTER  V 


JUDAISM 


THE  opportunity  never  came  of  practising 
the  law  of  Deuteronomy  in  its  early  fresh- 
ness. The  agony  of  the  Judsean  kingdom  began 
with  the  death  of  Josiah  (610).  Jerusalem  fell 
in  586.  The  temple  was  destroyed,  and  Yahweh 
had  no  longer  an  earthly  habitation.  The 
nation  itself  vanished  for  a  time,  and,  in  a 
sense,  for  ever ;  because  Judaism  was  thence- 
forward not  a  nation  but  a  religion.  The  best 
elements  in  the  population  had  been  transported 
to  Chaldsea,  and  those  chosen  few  were  tempered 
by  adversity;  for  they  rallied  to  Yahweh  and 
his  ministers,  the  priests  and  prophets :  their 
religion  was  all  that  remained  to  them  of  the 
past,  all  in  it  that  had  a  future.  The  morally 
weak  and  the  superstitious  melted  away  into 
the  pagan  populations.  As  those  who  had  been 
carried  away  from  Samaria  were  assimilated  by 
the    populations    among    whom    the    kings   of 

14  ^^3 


194     The  Religion  of  Israel 

Assyria  had  settled  them,  so  the  Judseans  whose 
religious  faith  was  not  strong  and  pure  ceased 
quickly  to  be  Jahvists.  But  there  remained  a 
faithful  band  in  whom  the  spirit  of  the  prophets 
and  the  Law  survived.  It  lived  on  memory  and 
hope.  The  book  of  Ezekiel  and  the  second  part 
of  Isaiah  (xl.-lv.)  show  us  what  were  then  the 
thoughts  and  aspirations  of  pious  Israelites. 
They  waited  for  the  restoration,  and  prepared 
for  it.  When  it  was  carried  out,  it  followed  a 
plan  arranged,  so  to  say,  beforehand ;  and  which 
was  influenced  by  other  considerations  than  the 
actual  position  created  for  the  remnant  of  Judah 
by  the  political  situation  of  the  time. 

§  1 

From  the  point  of  view  of  antiquity  nothing 
could  be  more  abnormal  than  the  religious 
position  of  the  believing  exiles  who  were  the 
guardians  of  Jahvism.  The  principles  and 
teaching  of  the  prophets  did  not  allow  them 
to  serve  the  Gods  of  Chaldsea :  on  the  other 
hand,  Judsean  tradition,  strengthened  yet  more 
by  the  Deuteronomic  reformation,  fixed  Yahweh 
in  Zion.  It  was  impossible  to  organize  in 
Babylon  a  system  of  worship  whose  only  lawful 
seat  must  be  at  Jerusalem.  Thus  they  clung  all 
the  more   strictly  to   those   religious   practices 


Judai 


sm  195 


which  could  survive  on  a  foreign  soil :  it  w^as 
now  that  the  sabbath  and  circumcision  acquired 
their  supreme  importance  as  characteristic 
Jewish   practices. 

They  were  convinced,  by  the  exhortations  of 
the  prophets,  and  by  Deuteronomy,  that  the 
misfortunes  of  the  nation  had  been  caused 
because  its  worship  was  not  blameless ;  and 
they  believed,  always  according  to  the  prophets, 
that  the  religion  of  their  ancestors  had  been 
little  better  than  infidelity  from  the  beginning. 
Thus  they  were  brought  to  imagine  for  the 
future  Israel  a  pure  religion  that  would  guard 
its  professors  against  a  repetition  of  the  divine 
chastisement.  It  is  so  that  we  must  explain 
the  making  of  rituals,  which  could  have  no 
immediate  usage,  but  which  would  be  utilised 
by  the  re-established  worship.  Up  to  now  oral 
traditions  and  practice  had  been  sufficient ;  but, 
now  the  temple  worship  had  ceased,  the  new 
ritual  could  only  exist  in  writing.  Therefore 
they  set  to  work  and  codified  the  ancient 
practices,  making  them  agree  with  the  prophetic 
standards ;  for  now  it  was  above  all  things 
necessary  to  conciliate  the  requirements  of 
this  moral  religion  with  the  traditional  and 
popular  practices  of  worship.  Priests  were 
better  qualified  for  this  task  than  any  one  else  : 
that   is   why   the   achievement   of    this   age    is 


196     The  Religion  of  Israel 

personified  best  in  Ezekiel,  who  was  a  priest, 
a  prophet,  and  one  may  say  an  editor  of  Law. 
As  a  prophet,  Ezekiel  still  taught ;  but  his 
literary  activity  was  greater  than  his  preaching. 
He  is,  so  far  as  we  know,  the  first  of  the  student 
or  bookish  prophets  who  wrote  apocalyptic 
visions.  The  priest  in  him  is  revealed  because 
the  prophet  is  a  ritualist,  which  Jeremiah  was 
not  at  all,  though  of  sacerdotal  origin* ;  neither 
was  Isaiah,  nor  Amos,  nor  Hosea.  It  required 
a  priest  to  conceive  the  messianic  reign  in  the 
model  of  a  precise  liturgy,  subordinated  narrowly 
to  the  ritual  of  the  temple.  As  a  moralist, 
Ezekiel  enforced  vigorously  the  doctrine  of 
individual  responsibility,  which  scarcely  agrees 
with  older  notions  about  the  chastisement  of 
Israel  as  a  people,  and  for  the  sins  of  its  fathers. 
He  conceived  the  relation  of  Israel  with  Yahweh 
as  a  covenant,  made  in  the  desert,  for  a 
ritualistic  purpose,  and  especially  for  the 
observance  of  the  sabbath,  which  seemed  to 
him  the  essential  mark  of  Jahvism ;  and  it  is 
with  respect  to  those  old  laws  that  he  speaks  of 
the  malicious  commandments  which  were  given 
by  Yahweh  to  Israel  for  its  destruction,  f    Diff er- 

*  But  Jeremiah  did  not  belong  to  the  Jerusalem  priest- 
hood. Perhaps  this  fact  should  be  weighed  when  we  try 
to  explain  his  complete  indifference  about  the  temple. 

t  See  above,  p.  165. 


Judaism  197 

ing,  thus,  from  Jeremiah,  he  acknowledged  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant  and  Deuteronomy  as 
Mosaic  laws.  The  great  sin  of  Israel  was 
idolatry :  therefore  the  Israel  of  the  future  will 
be  distinguished  by  a  worship  that  conforms  to 
the  laws  established  by  Yahweh  himself.  A 
more  complete  repudiation  of  the  past  could 
not  be  imagined.  This  prophet,  above  all  others, 
has  taught  Judaism  to  misunderstand  its  own 
history.* 

The  life  of  Israel  has  been  a  continual  idolatry; 
Ezekiel  calls  it  prostitution,  and  he  develops  the 
symbolism,  utilized  by  Hosea,  of  Yahweh's 
marriage  with  his  people,  by  following  it  out 
in  realistic  descriptions  that  go  very  near  to 
obscenity.  Instead  of  a  patriarchal  nobility,  he 
gives  to  his  nation  as  ancestors  an  Amorite 
father  and  a  Hittite  mother.  Jerusalem, 
Samaria,    Sodom :    it   is   all   the   same   thing. 

The  God  of  Ezekiel  is  more  anthropomorphic, 
one  might  say  freely  more  archaic,  than  the  God 
of  Jeremiah.  The  prophet  saw  him  in  human 
shape,  driving  in  a  fantastic  carriage.  But  this 
God  has  lost  all  connexion  with  Sinai.  The 
"  glory  of  Yahweh  "  comes  from  the  north,  from 
the  hill  of  the  Gods,  which  Ezekiel  seems  to 
identify  with  the  Garden  of  Eden.  A  habitation 
had  to  be  found  for  Yahweh,  since  he  had  left 

*  Stade,  84. 


198     The  Religion  of  Israel 

Zion ;  and  he  had  become  too  great  to  be  sent  back 
into  the  wilderness.  Though  Ezekiel  abhorred 
strange  worships  his  imagination  was  filled  with 
mythological  subjects.  The  usage  of  pagan  myths 
in  apocalyptic  writings  begins  with  him.  He 
seems  to  have  made  the  Gods  into  auxiliaries 
of  Yahweh ;  the  seven  celestial  beings  who 
carried  out  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem*  might 
be  the  Gods  of  the  seven  planets,  and  the  one 
with  an  inkhorn  would  be  Nabu.  Was  the 
mind  of  the  Jahvist  priest  fertilized  in  Babylon 
by  these  materials  borrowed  from  polytheism  ? 
It  may  be  admitted  freely.  But  would  it  not  be 
more  likely  that  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  there 
would  be  formed  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem 
a  kind  of  gnostic  syncretism,  which  the 
Deuteronomic  reformation  did  not  attack,  or 
which  was  only  pruned  and  not  eradicated? 
The  Jahvist  story  of  the  flood,  which  is  not  very 
old,  might  come  from  this  period. 

By  the  anonymous  author,  who  is  usually 
known  as  the  Second  Isaiah,  the  purely  ideal 
treatment  of  Jeremiah  is  revived ;  but  the 
decadence  of  prophecy  is  shown  by  the 
author  not  making  himself  known.  His  work 
is  no  longer  an  exhortation,  nor  even  an 
original  prophecy.  It  consists  of  eloquent 
displays   about  the   approaching  deliverance  of 

^  Ezek.  ix. 


Judaism  199 


Israel ;  and,  however  remarkable  it  may  be,  in 
the  sentiment  which  inspires  it  and  by  its 
musical  style,  it  depends  very  much  for  its 
matter  on  the  prophetic  writers  of  the  past. 
The  author  never  says  anything  by  his  own 
inspiration,  though  he  speaks  often  in  the 
name  of  Yahweh.  He  is  a  prophet,  since  he 
announces  and  interprets  the  plans  of  God, 
but  he  is  very  little  of  a  visionary.  Instead 
of  being,  like  Ezekiel,  a  man  of  the  future 
Law,  he  is  merely  a  man  of  hope  ;  and  he 
draws  freely  on  every  subject  that  can 
stimulate   and   nourish  confidence. 

In  him,  at  length,  we  find  the  expression 
of  an  absolute  monotheism :  Yahweh  alone 
has  made  the  world,  and  directs  history  ;  he 
only  is  God,  and  the  strange  Gods,  whom 
the  author  identifies  with  their  images,  are 
a  mere  nothing.  This  latter  notion  did  not 
prevail,  at  least  not  wholly,  over  that  of 
Ezekiel.  The  Gods  survived  in  the  condition 
of  spirits  subordinated  to  the  sole  God.  It 
was  allowed  that — 

When  the  Most  High  formed  the  nations, 
When  he  separated  the  children  of  men, 
He  settled  the  borders  of  the  peoples 
According  to  the  numbers  of  the  sons  of  God  ; 
For   the   portion   of  Yahweh   was   Jacob, 
And   his   inheritance   was   Israel."'^ 


*  Deut.  xxxii.  8-9,  following  the  Septuagint. 


200     The  Religion  of  Israel 

Then  two  notions  mingled ;  and  it  was 
held  that  the  Gods  of  the  nations  did  not 
really  exist,  but  that  they  were  spirits  whom 
God  had  entrusted  with  the  care  of  the 
peoples,  or  who  had  taken  it  upon  themselves  ; 
and  that  they  had  performed  their  duties 
badly. 

While  insisting  upon  the  creation  of  the 
world  by  Yahweh,  the  Second  Isaiah  had  no 
philosophic  theory  of  creation,  that  is  of  a 
world  drawn  out  of  nothing.  Yahweh  organ- 
ized chaos,  and  even  triumphed  over  it. 
Though  his  mind  was  not  tinged  with 
mythology  like  Ezekiel's,  the  anonymous  writer 
acknowledges  a  struggle  of  Yahweh  against 
the  power  of  darkness,  whom  the  Demiurge 
had  to  overcome  before  he  could  organize 
the   existing    world. 

Awake,    awake,    put  on   strength 

O   arm   of  Yahweh ; 

Awake   as   in   the  days   of  old, 

The   generations   of  ancient  times  I 

Is   it  not  thou  who  hast  spUt  Rahab 

And  pierced  the  dragon  ?  * 

Rahab  is  the  redoubtable  Tiamut,  whom  the 
Babylonian  Demiurge,  Marduk,  cut  in  two,  to 
make    heaven    and     earth.     This     myth     may 

*  Isa.  li.  9-10. 


Judaism  20 1 

have  been  known  to  the  Jews  before  the 
captivity.  Traces  of  it  have  been  found  in 
Job,  and  in  several  psalms.  The  priestly 
writer  of  the  Hexateuch  has  chosen  to  ignore 
it  in  his  systematic  narrative  of  the  cos- 
mogony ;  although  neither  has  he  any  notion 
of  a  creation,  and  he  also  confronts  the  Demi- 
urge with  a  chaos,  which  has  to  be  organized, 
In  the  same  way  that  the  Second  Isaiah 
has  reached  the  notion  of  a  sole  and  universal 
God,  so  he  has  formed  a  larger  conception 
of  Israel's  office  than  any  of  his  predecessors. 
Israel  was  chosen  to  proclaim  the  true  God 
to  the  nations :  he  has  foundered  in  this  task, 
but  he  will  rise  again,  and  his  restoration 
will  be  the  saving  of  the  Gentiles.  It  was  a 
large  and  gracious  vision,  and  it  is  the 
nearest  approach  to  universalism  that  is  found 
in  the  prophets ;  by  the  width  of  its  horizon 
it  exceeds  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  ;  and  Saint 
Paul  himself,  under  the  pressure  of  circum- 
stances, has  rather  narrowed  it.  That  the 
Author  is  later  than  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel, 
and  is  an  imitation  of  them,  can  hardly 
be  doubted.  For  him  there  are  two  Israels : 
a  real  and  historic  Israel  of  the  past,  a 
guilty  Israel,  too,  alas !  which  has  not  ful- 
filled its  mission,  and  which  Yahweh  has 
punished  justly;  and  an    ideal  Israel,    faithful 


202     The  Religion  of  Israel 

and  perfect,  represented  formerly  without  any 
doubt  by  the  righteous  and  the  prophets, 
which  has  suffered  in  their  persons  all  the 
tribulations  that  have  afflicted  the  chosen 
people,  but  to  which  above  all  the  future 
belongs,  since  it  will  emerge  from  death  to 
enlighten   the  nations  : 

It  is  too  small  a  thing  to  establish  the  tribes  of  Jacob 

And   to   bring   back   the   survivors   of   Israel  : 

I   make   thee   the   light   of   the   Gentiles, 

So  that  my  salvation  may  go  to  the  ends  of  the  earth."* 

Ezekiel  segregated  Israel  from  the  Gentiles 
in  his  city  of  the  future,  and  the  Lord 
divided  him  from  them  in  the  actual  world. 
The  Second  Isaiah  amalgamates  pagans  and 
Israelites,  and  even  foresees,  a  little  rashly, 
the  conversion  of  Cyrus.  A  privilege, 
however,  is  reserved  to  the  people  of  God : 
it  will   reign   over  the   converted   Gentiles. 

The  reality  cannot  fail  to  be  short  of  so 
fine  a  dream ;  but,  possibly,  not  a  less  ardent 
hope  was  required  to  bring  about  a  new  and 
voluntary  migration  of  these  exiles  who  had 
taken  root  in  the  land  of  their  enemies,  and 
who  in  the  end  had  done  so  well  there. 
When  Cyrus  granted  them  leave  to  go  back 
into  their  own  country,  they  did  not  all  avail 
themselves     of     it;     and     many      Jews,     who 

*  Isa.  xlix.  6. 


Judaism  203 

remained    faithful   to     Yahweh     and     in    com- 
munion  with   their  brethren  in  Palestine,   con- 
tinued to  live  by  the   waters  of  Babylon.     The 
fortunes   of   Judaism  were   long    precarious    in 
Jerusalem;  and  the  Babylonian  colony  supported 
it  by  encouragement,  by  its  faith,  by  its  favour 
with  the  rulers,  and  also  with  its  money.    The 
exiles  who  returned,  under  Zerubbabel,  to  settle 
in  Jerusalem  and  to  rebuild  the  town,  and  then 
the    temple,    were    few    in   number,   and    they 
were  soon  isolated  in  the  midst  of  a  population 
which  had  not  learnt  the  lesson  of  the  captivity. 
The    smaller    peasantry,  which    had    remained 
in    the     land,     had     not     forgotten     Yahweh, 
but  its   religion   was   that   of   the  time   before 
the   exile ;     and  it     had   neither  the   zeal    nor 
the   legalist  temper    of    the     Jews   who    came 
from     Babylon.     Thanks     to    the     help     which 
came  thence,  the   Jerusalem   settlement  was  by 
des'rees     consolidated  ;   and    when     its     pious 
fervour   grew    timid   or    seemed    to   wane    the 
exiled  believers   provided  for  its  needs.     From 
the   exile   there   was   .imported    by    Ezra,   and 
under     the     auspices    of  Nehemiah,   that   Law 
which   finally  moulded  Judaism. 

§    2 

If  the   last   chapters   of    Ezekiel,   (xl.-xlviii.) 
in   which   the   status   of    the   future     Israel    is 


204     The  Religion  of  Israel 

planned,  had  not  been  attached  to  the  writings 
of  a  known  prophet,  and  if  their  author  had 
not  covered  them  with  the  name  of  Moses,  by 
presenting  them  as  a  revelation  made  to  Israel 
in  the  wilderness,   they  might  have   figured  in 
the   Law.     Other   heirs   of   the   sacerdotal   tra- 
dition,  working  in  the    same  spirit,  elaborated 
a   ritual   which   has   been  incorporated  in  that 
document   of    the   Hexateuch   which   is   known 
as  the  Priestly  Code.     This  document  has  been 
styled  by  writers  The  Law  of  Holiness,  *  because 
of    the   theory  which   dominates   it :    to   make 
Israel   a   holy  people   and  worthy   of  the   God 
whom  it  serves,  by  the  practice  of  a  worship 
regulated   down   to   its   minutest   details.      The 
sacerdotal   point   of    view  is   betrayed   by   this 
anxiety ;  for  the  holiness  does  not  consist  solely 
in  moral  perfection,  but  also,  and  it  might  even 
be  said  chiefly,  in  a  ritual  purity  which  depends 
on    primitive    notions    about    the    purity    and 
impurity  of  things,  whose  relation  to  the  deity 
is  conceived  in  a  wholly  material  way.     Ancient 
superstitions,  otherwise  harmless  in  themselves, 
thus    take    on   the    appearance  of    divine   pro- 
hibitions :  as  for  instance  the  forbidding  to  sow 
two    kinds    of   grain   in   the   same    field,  or    to 
use    two    different    kinds    of    material   in    the 
weaving  of  a  cloth ;  or,  it  may  be,  that  common 
*  See  above,  p.  31. 


Judaism  205 

pagan  habits  are  forbidden,  like  tattooing,  which 
primitive  Jahvism  seems  to  have  practised.* 

All  this  is  mingled  with  commands  or  pro- 
hibitions of  a  moral  nature,  which  are  strictly 
religious.  And  they  are  all  justified  for  similar 
reasons  :  "  And  ye  shall  be  holy  unto  me  :  for 
I  Yahweh  am  holy,  and  have  separated  you 
from  the  nations,  that  ye  should  be  mine."t  This 
separation  itself  is  an  element  of  the  holiness 
which  is  prescribed. 

The  same  point  of  view  prevails  throughout 
the  whole  Priestly  Code.  The  compilation  gives 
its  rules  in  the  setting  of  a  narrative  which 
makes  the  whole  work  a  sort  of  liturgical  his- 
tory of  mankind  :  an  history,  it  must  be  said 
emphatically,  which  has  little  or  no  connexion 
with  realities.  But  the  author  gains  an  ad- 
vantage by  linking  the  origin  of  the  sabbath 
with  the  creation  of  the  world,  the  prohibition 
of  blood  with  the  deluge,  circumcision  with 
Abraham ;  as  he  also  gains  one,  more  obviously, 
by  attaching  the  ritual  of  the  second  temple 
to  Moses  and  the  revelation  at  Sinai.  For  he 
does  not  fear  to  throw  back  the  system  of 
sacrifices   into  the  times  of   Moses,  at  the  cost 

^  Exod.  xiii.  9,  16,  alludes  to  it.  Apparently  the  old 
prophets  were  marked  on  their  foreheads  ;  see  1  Kings 
XX.  41.     Tattooing  the  hand  is  alluded  to  in  Isa.  xliv.  5. 

f  Lev.  XX.  26. 


2o6      The  Religion  of  Israel 

of  suppressing  in  the  patriarchal  history  every- 
thing contradictory  to  his  systematic  theory. 
Through  the  Priestly  Code,  the  same  temper 
of  idealism  and  ritualism  has  affected  the  final 
composition  of  the  Law  and  of  the  whole 
Pentateuch. 

It  may  be  seen,  from  the  Book  of  Nehemiah, 
that  the  promulgation  of  the  Law  by  Ezra  was 
made  under  similar  conditions  to  the  promul- 
gation of  Deuteronomy  by  Josiah ;  and  that 
the  priestly  legislation,  as  a  whole,  was  not 
known  previously  by  the  community  which 
bound  itself  so  solemnly  to  observe  it.  As 
Josiah  had  rent  his  clothes,  in  sign  of  poignant 
grief,  when  he  had  heard  the  reading  of 
Deuteronomy,  overwhelmed  as  he  was  by  the 
wrath  of  Yahweh  for  the  neglect  of  this 
Law  by  the  former  generations,  who  had  been 
ignorant  of  it,  so  the  people  assembled  by 
Ezra  was  dissolved  in  tears  when  it  acquired 
a  knowledge  of  the  new  code.  And  as  Josiah 
and  the  people  had  sworn  to  observe  the  Law 
of  Hilkiah,  so  Nehemiah  and  the  assembled 
Jews  swore  to  keep  the  Law  of  Ezra.  This 
time  the  undertaking  was  even  put  down 
in  writing :  Nehemiah  signed  it,  so  did  the 
priests  and  nobles ;  and  the  multitude  followed 
their  leaders,  promising  "  with  curse  and  oath 
to    walk  in    Yahweh's    Law,   which   had  been 


Judaism  207 

given  by  Moses  the  servant  of  Yahweh."  * 
Finally,  in  the  same  way  as  the  author  of 
Kings  observed,  with  profound  truth,  that  never 
since  the  time  of  the  Judges  (nor  even  before 
it),  had  a  Passover  been  celebrated  like  that 
held  by  Josiah  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his 
reign,  so  the  Book  of  Chronicles  points  out, 
rightly,  that  neither  since  the  time  of  Joshua 
(nor  in  any  other  time),  had  the  children  of 
Israel  kept  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  as  they 
did  after  the  promulgation  of  Ezra's  Law.f 

The  practical  conditions  by  means  of  which 
Israel  shall  be  truly  Yahweh's  nation,  the  priestly 
nation  which  it  ought  to  be  for  the  God  who, 
by  a  special  choice,  has  separated  it  from  all 
the  peoples,  are  laid  down  with  the  utmost 
detail  in  the  Levitical  code.  The  land  occupied 
by  the  children  of  Jacob  is  holy,  as  the  property 
of  God  ;  but  even  more  holy  is  the  tabernacle, 
that  is  the  temple,  the  only  place  in  the 
world  where  the  divine  worship  may  be  cele- 
brated, and  where  Yahweh  becomes  present  to 
receive  the  offerings  due  to  him.  Holy  are 
the  seasons  which  God  sets  apart  as  belonging 
specially  to  himself,  and  in  particular  his 
sabbaths.  But  the  sabbatical  system  grew 
to    extravagant    proportions  :   the   earth  itself 

*  Neh.  X.  29. 

f  See  2  Kings  xxiii.  22.  ;   Neh.  viii.  17. 


2o8     The  Religion  of  Israel 

must  have  its  sabbath,  and  rest  untilled  every 
seventh  year;  and  at  the  end  of  seven  sabba- 
tory    cycles,    there    must   be   a   great   sabbath, 
the   year   of    Jubilee  ;   also  a  rest  for  the  soil, 
and   a  season  when   alienated  estates  must  go 
back   to  their   original    owners.      This    curious 
social  economy  was  meant  to  prove  the  sovereign 
rights  of  Yahweh,  the  only  real  proprietor   of 
Israel's   land.      A   whole    system    of    dues   was 
organized  to  acknowledge  this  right:  first-fruits, 
tithes,   and   a   regulated   series   of   offerings   in 
the   temple.     Holy  must  be  all  the  children  of 
Israel  by  the  rigorous  observance  of  circumcision, 
and  of  all  the  commandments  about  clean  and 
unclean    things,    about    states    of    purity    and 
impurity.     They  were  truly  a  nation  of  priests, 
and  they  proclaimed  it.     But  as  all  could  not 
carry  out  the  special  conditions  of  purity  which 
were  necessary  for  the  divine  service,  the  people 
were   represented,   in    matters   of    worship,  by 
the  priests,  who  were  held  to  be  descended  from 
Aaron   by  his  two  sons  Eleazar  and   Ithamar; 
and   by  the  Levites  in  the  lesser  ministries  of 
God's  house,  and  as  attendants  on  the  priests. 
The    latter  had   a   chief,   a   high    priest,   the 
supposed  successor  of  Aaron,  who  became  the 
leading     personage     in     the     new    community. 
Before     Josiah's     reformation,    the     sacerdotal 
body    had    no    single    head,   though    the    first 


Judaism  209 

priest  of  the  temple  was  already  a  great 
person ;  but  he  was  dependent  on  the  king, 
and  the  priests  of  the  shrines  outside  Jeru- 
salem were  not  subject  to  him.  Under  the 
conditions  which  were  prepared  for  Judaism 
in  the  restoration  authorized  by  Cyrus,  the 
chief  of  the  Jerusalem  priesthood,  in  all  that 
was  not  reserved  to  the  foreign  sovereignty, 
was  the  real  leader  of  the  Jews :  the  sacerdotal 
code  definitely  consecrates  his  supreme  autho- 
rity, and  his  special  dignity  in  religious  matters. 
His  power  was  bound  to  grow,  and  practically 
did  grow,  little  by  little.  At  the  return 
from  exile,  there  was  a  kind  of  rivalry 
between  Zerubbabel  and  the  priest  Joshua, 
and  also  occasional  bickerings  between  Nehe- 
miah  and  the  high  priest  Eliashib.  But  when 
he  only  had  to  deal  with  Persian  viceroys,  the 
pontiff,  who  had  enormous  revenues,  was  the 
real  master  of  the  little  Jewish  state.  Even 
more,  when  the  family  of  Mattathias  had  re- 
gained temporarily  the  national  independence, 
the  political  chief,  profiting  by  the  fact  that  he 
was  of  a  sacerdotal  family,  assumed  the  dignity 
of  high  priest.  Herod,  who  could  not  pretend 
to  it,  was  careful  to  keep  the  choice  of  pontiffs 
in  his  own  hands,  and  not  to  leave  the  office  too 
long  with  the  same  person.  The  Romans  did 
the  same. 

15 


2IO     The  Religion  of  Israel 

But  the  religious  importance  of  this  pontifi- 
cate was  not  equal  to  its  political  greatness. 
This  had  not  been  foreseen  by  the  theorists 
of  the  Levitical  code,  who  were  chiefly  pre- 
occupied with  the  centralization  of  worship, 
with  the  unity  of  the  sanctuary  and  of  the 
sacerdotal  hierarchy.  The  regulation  of  the 
priesthood  was  a  part  of  the  system  which 
organized  the  life  of  the  community  theo- 
cratically,  it  might  even  be  said  ritualistically. 
That  system  is  now  perfected :  it  is  composed 
almost  wholly  of  ancient  materials,  but  it  is 
new  by  the  spirit  which  animates  it  all,  and 
gives  a  meaning  to  every  part. 

On  one  hand,  it  would  seem  that  the  over- 
throw of  the  first  temple  and  the  temporary 
suppression  of  sacrifice  effected  a  purifying  and 
spiritualizing  of  the  conceptions  of  Yahweh. 
Yahweh  is  no  longer,  and  above  all  things, 
the  God  of  Israel ;  he  is  God,  simply :  he  is 
no  longer  represented  as  talking  familiarly 
with  men,  and  the  priestly  writer  is  careful  to 
suppress  the  infantile  story  of  Eden,  as  well 
as  most  things  in  the  patriarchal  legends ; 
storms  are  still  instruments  of  divine  mani- 
festation, but  because  God  wills  it  so,  not 
by  any  natural  affinity;  God  withdraws  him- 
self from  the  world,  and  from  external  inter- 
course with   men,   to   communicate   only  with 


Judaism  2 1 1 

their    spirit,   perhaps    more    with    their    spirit 
than   their  heart.     To  this   tendency,  which   is 
slightly  intellectualist,  we   owe   the  fine   story 
of  the  creation  which  now  opens  the  Bible,  as 
well  as  the  philosophy  of  the  old  sacred  history, 
and  the  notion   of   successive   agreements  with 
Adam,   Noah,   Abraham,    and   Moses.     Nothing 
could   be   less    true   as    history ;   but   it   was   a 
striking   production   of  rationalizing   theology. 
It  was  all  reasoned  until  it  seemed  to  be  most 
reasonable.      On   this   foundation,   Jewish    and 
Christian     monotheism     has     built    a     general 
philosophy    of    the    universe    and    of    history 
which  was  able  to  impose  itself  on  the  ancient 
world,  and  which  has  been  seriously  challenged 
only  by  the  scientific  labours  of  recent  centuries. 
On    the    other    hand,    one    seems    to    watch 
a    materializing     of     worship     that     contrasts 
strangely   with    the    spiritualization   of    belief. 
Nevertheless    Ezra's    Law   did    not   materialize 
the   worship   except    in    relation    to   us,   so   to 
speak,  and   not  in   comparison  with  what  had 
existed    previously.      This   Law   did   not  mate- 
rialize worship   so  far  as  we  compare   it  with 
the    actual    religion   of    the   prophets,   remem- 
bering  that   there   never  was   any   prophetical 
religion,  but  only  a   criticism   by  the   prophets 
of     a     worship     thoroughly     engrained     with 
idolatry  and    superstition  :    it  is   this  worship 


212     The  Religion  of  Israel 

that   we  must  compare   with    the   worship   of 
the   Levitical   code   if    we   would   appraise   the 
latter  justly.     At  that  time,  and  in  those  sur- 
roundings, it  could  not  have  entered  the  mind 
of  any  religious   legislator  that  the   system  of 
sacrifices  should  be   abolished.     The  sacerdotal 
code   appears   to   recommend   a  more   external 
and     ritualistic     religion     than     Deuteronomy, 
because    the     introduction    of     many    customs 
and    observances    into    its    rules   was   thought 
desirable,  and  especially  all  the  details  of  the 
liturgical  service :    of  these  things,  the  authors 
of  Deuteronomy  had   not  thought  it  advisable 
to   speak,   though   they   existed   none   the   less, 
and   they  were  bound  to  attract  the  legists  of 
the   exile.      The   rules   about  things   clean   and 
unclean,  and  the  whole  of  the  sacrificial  liturgy, 
are  only  the  codification   and  systematizing  of 
a  very  ancient  usage.     Everything  that  clashed 
with  the  monotheistic  faith  was  eliminated,  as 
well  as  practices  obviously  tainted  with  idolatry 
and  superstition,  or  which  were  connected  with 
divination  and  worship  of  the  dead.     Of  all  the 
rest,  out  of  everything  which  could  be  regarded 
as   an  element  of   worship,  was   made   a   cycle 
of  observances,  minutely  thought  out,  in  which 
was  perceived  a  way  of   recognising  the   sove- 
reignty   of     God     by    a    service    of    perpetual 
obedience,     And  it  never  happened  that  for  the 


Judaism  213 


majority,  or  even  for  the  doctors  of  the  Law, 
these  practices  were  considered  indifferent  in 
themselves  and  without  intrinsic  value.  Nor 
did  their  course  of  development  stop  even  here. 
The  legislation  of  Ezra  shows  the  beginning  of 
a  casuistry,  whose  excessive  development  will 
one  day  be  hurtful  to  the  morality  of  true 
religion.  For  the  present,  it  is  a  way  of  cata- 
loguing the  heritage  of  the  past,  while  neu- 
tralising the  primitive  and  more  or  less 
naturalistic  meaning  of  the  ancient  rites. 

In  its  own  time,  the  sacerdotal  code,  far 
from  being  reactionary,  was  rather  a  stage 
of  progress  in  the  evolution  of  Judaism.  It 
facilitated  the  compromise,  w^hich  was  begun 
by  Deuteronomy,  between  the  faith  of  the 
prophets,  with  its  idealizing  and  individualistic 
tendencies,  and  the  necessities  of  a  popular 
religion ;  ib  might  be  added,  of  every  religion 
which  involves  the  communion  of  its  believers 
by  means  of  a  settled  and  traditional  worship. 
It  gave  to  monotheism,  which  was  defined 
henceforward  as  a  creed,  that  external  pro- 
tection which  was  needed  to  implant  it  firmly 
in  the  conscience  of  the  Jewish  people.  In 
order  that  the  monotheist  faith  might  become 
indestructible  for  Israel,  it  was  necessary  that 
the  chosen  people  should  be  segregated,  as  it 
were,  and   shielded   from   pagan   influences,  by 


214     The   Religion  of  Israel 

submitting  to  a  severe  and  complicated  rule. 
"  Religions,"  says  Renan,  "  often  gain  a  con- 
"  servative  power  from  the  very  fetters  which 
"  they  impose."  *  Less  shut  in  by  the  Law,  the 
Jewish  community  would  have  been  more  liable 
to  temptations  from  without,  and  might  easily 
have  been  diverted  from  its  contribution  to  the 
religious  history  of  mankind.  It  is  true  that 
this  crushing  law  could  only  be  made  efficacious 
by  being  accepted ;  but  it  always  had  zealous 
partizans  to  ensure  its  triumph,  even  by 
force  if  necessary,  should  its  authority  seem 
threatened. 

There  was  one  practice,  namely,  fasting, 
which  is  hardly  mentioned  in  the  Law,  since 
it  is  inculcated  only  for  the  solemnity  of  the 
Expiation,!  on  the  tenth  day  of  the  seventh 
month,  but  which  acquired  nevertheless  a 
prominent  place  among  the  religious  customs 
of  the  Jews  after  the  exile.  It  seems  that 
they  used  to  commemorate  in  this  way,  during 
the  captivity,  their  melancholy  anniversaries. 
Before  that,  fasts  had  only  been  ordered  for 
public  calamities ;  but  fasting  was  a  usual 
custom  in  the  burial  rites,  and  perhaps  in 
its  origin  it  was  connected  with  worship  of 
the  dead.     In  public  fasts  the  same  ceremonial 

*  Histoire  du  Peuple  d' Israel^  ii.  465. 
+  Neh.  ix.  1. 


Judaism  215 

was  observed  as  for  mourning.  For  instance, 
on  the  occasion  of  promulgating  Ezra's  Law, 
"The  children  of  Israel  were  assembled  with 
"fasting,  and  with  sack  cloth,  and  with  earth 
upon  them."  At  that  period  every  important 
matter  was  prepared  for  by  fasting.  It  was 
an  exhibition  of  repentance,  to  which  was  added 
a  public  acknowledgment  of  national  sin,  and 
it  soon  grew  into  a  fashionable  habit  of  private 
devotion.  The  misfortunes  of  the  nation  and 
the  spirit  of  post-exilic  Judaism  are  undoubtedly 
enough  to  explain  the  diffusion  of  the  practice. 

§  3 

After  the  reformation  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
Judaism  was  settled,  and  it  tended  progressively 
to  harden.  Up  till  then,  it  had  been  on  the 
defensive  against  the  petty  nations  round  it,  and 
against  the  inhabitants  of  the  former  kingdom 
of  Samaria :  the  material  interests  of  the  com- 
munity in  Jerusalem  led  them  to  open  their 
gates  to  their  neighbours,  and  to  be  on  friendly 
relations  with  them.  These  necessities  were  a 
counterpoise  to  the  exacting  and  exclusive 
religious  feeling  which  the  old  exiles  had 
brought  back  from  Babylon.  It  can  be  seen 
clearly  that  the  priests  of  the  temple  had 
scarcely  reached  a  position  of  privilege  and 
profit    before     they     showed     themselves     less 


2i6     The  Religion  of  Israel 

fanatical  and  narrow  than  the  legists  who  came 
from  Babylon,  like  the  scribe  Ezra,  or  than 
the  pious  laity,  who  also  came  from  abroad, 
like  Nehemiah. 

On  the  question  of  marriage,  especially,  with 
non-Jewish  women,  the  priests  and  inhabitants 
of  Jerusalem  had  not  the  scrupulosity  of  the 
reformers.  The  Book  of  Ruth  would  seem  to 
have  been  written  against  the  measures  that 
zealots  for  the  holiness  of  Israel  wanted  to 
enforce.  As  primitive  Jahvism  was  above  all 
things  a  religion  of  men,  which  troubled  as 
little  about  women  as  about  slaves,  marriages 
with  non-Israelite  women  had  long  been  per- 
mitted without  scruple.  But  such  marriages 
had  become  irreconcilable  with  the  notions  that 
had  been  formed  about  the  holiness  of  Israel, 
and  about  the  entire  repudiation  of  all  foreign 
worship.  Polygamy  remained  licit  in  theory, 
but  was  little  practised  ;  divorce  was  wholly  at 
the  will  of  the  husband ;  but  the  blood  of  the 
chosen  race  must  remain  pure,  and  neither 
superstition  nor  idolatry  should  invade  the 
home.  A  struggle  was  bound  to  come  between 
the  party  of  freedom  and  the  zealots  of  the 
Law. 

The  Samaritan  schism  owed  its  beginning  to 
these  differences.  We  have  seen  already  that 
the    majority    of    the     antique    Israelites    and 


Judaism  217 

Judseans,  who  had  remained  in  their  country, 
were  really  desirous    to   worship  Yahweh,  but 
they  had   neither   the   bitter   zeal   nor  the  ex- 
clusive temper  which  animated  the  exiles,  those 
especially   who  did    not    come    back,    and  who 
from   Babylon    watched    over   the   fortunes  of 
Jahvism   in    their    native    land.      The    old    in- 
habitants  would    willingly  have    united  them- 
selves to   the  worship   of   Jerusalem,  but  they 
were  excluded.     They  were  not  organized,  how- 
ever,  into    a     rival    community,    as   they    had 
probably  neither  priests  nor  Law.     Now  it  so 
happened  that  the  grandson  of  the  high  priest 
Eliashib  had  married  the  daughter  of  Sanballat, 
the  opponent   of   Nehemiah.     When  there  was 
a  question  of  putting  away  the  foreign  wives, 
which   was   a   fundamental    matter    in   the  re- 
formation planned  by  Ezra  and  carried  out  by 
Nehemiah,  the  grandson   of   Eliashib  preferred 
exiling    himself    to    dismissing    his     wife    and 
breaking  with  his  father-in-law.      And  he  was 
probably  not  alone;   because  Nehemiah   writes 
in  his  history,*  when  he   boasts  of  having  ex- 
pelled   him,    "  Kemember    them,    O     my    God, 
*'  because  they  have  defiled  the  priesthood,  and 
"  the   covenant   of   the   priesthood,  and   of  the 
"Levites."      The     banished    priests    retired    to 
Samaria ;    and    thus    the    sect    known     as   the 

'^=  Neh.  xii.  29. 


2i8     The   Religion  of  Israel 

Samaritans  was  organized,  whose  sanctuary  was 
at  Shechem,  on  mount  Gerizim,  one  of  the  holy 
places  of  the  old  kingdom  of  Israel. 

The  rupture  could  not  have  been  at  first  so 
complete  as  it  grew  to  be  in  the  course  of  time. 
We  may  hold  that  the  Judseans  of  Samaria 
kept  up  some  intercourse  and  connexion  with 
their  native  country.  The  schismatic  priests 
accepted  the  Law,  as  it  had  been  made  by  Ezra, 
and  after  him  by  the  scribes  who  edited  the 
compilations  of  the  Pentateuch.  But  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  rival  worship  so  near  Jerusalem 
could  not  be  effected  without  hostility,  which 
soon  broke  out.  The  Samaritans  accepted  only 
the  Law,  and  not  the  collection  of  the  Prophets, 
which  was  made  about  a  century  later:  nor, 
with  better  reason,  that  of  the  Hagiographa. 
Their  worship  was  always  a  strict  monotheism, 
according  to  the  tenour  of  the  Law;  but  it 
was  a  religion  without  enthusiasm,  and  there- 
fore it  never  showed  any  capacity  for  prose- 
lytizing. It  may  be  noticed  that  the  Saddu- 
cees,  the  sacerdotal  aristocracy  of  Jerusalem, 
undertook  also  to  base  their  religion  solely 
upon  the  Law,  and  that  they  were  wanting 
altogether  in  religious  zeal.  This  parallel  is 
not  without  historical  significance.  Samari- 
tanism  was  the  antithesis  of  a  proselytizing 
organization :   it  was  an  association  of  reason- 


Judais 


m  219 


able  believers  protesting  against  what  seemed 
to  them  an  intolerant  fanaticism.  Great  re- 
ligious creations  do  not  issue  out  of  such 
conditions.  The  Samaritan  body  was  nothing 
but  a  Judaic  sect,  which  in  no  sense  continued 
the  traditions  of  the  old  Israelitish  monarchy. 
That  sect  broke  away  from  Judaism  at  the  very 
time  when  the  latter  was  becoming  self-con- 
centrated and  vigorous,  and  was  about  to  exert 
the  force  of  its  propaganda  on  the  world. 

At  Jerusalem  prophecy  was  extinguished.  At 
the  beginning  of  the  restoration,  while  the 
temple  was  rebuilding,  a  few  authoritative 
voices  were  heard,  those  of  Haggai  and 
Zechariah.  By  the  time  of  Nehemiah,  the 
institution  was  dead.  Nehemiah,  to  be  ac- 
curate, still  mentions  prophets  ;  but,  according 
to  him,  they  were  people  paid  by  his  opponents 
to  frighten  him  with  untrue  announcements. 
"Remember,  O  my  God,"  writes  the  pious 
governor,  "  Tobiah  and  Sanballat,  according  to 
"these  their  works,  and  also  the  prophetess 
"Noadiah,  and  the  rest  of  the  prophets  that 
"would  have  put  me  in  fear."*  Henceforth, 
prophecy  was  only  carried  on  by  stealth,  in 
the  pseudonymous  literature  of  the  apocalypses. 
There  is  no  longer  any  prophetical  teaching. 
Sacerdotal    instruction    vanished,    too,    in   like 

*  Neh.  vi.  14. 


220     The  Religion  of  Israel 

manner.  The  ministerial  duties  of  the  priest 
consisted  only  in  performing  a  very  complicated 
ritual.  The  future  belonged  to  scribes,  doctors 
of  the  Law,  moralists,  casuists.  The  scribe  out- 
lived, not  only  the  prophet,  but  the  priest ;  and 
it  was  by  him,  with  his  intangible  Law,  that 
Judaism  itself  was  able  to  survive.  About  the 
year  200,  when  Ecclesiasticus  was  written,  he 
was  already  in  great  repute.  He  was  the  sage, 
the  master,  credited  with  a  knowledge  of  things 
divine  and  human.  All  this  knowledge,  how- 
ever, was  co-ordinated  with  and  subordinated 
to  a  proficiency  in  the  Law  of  God :  in  time,  it 
was  not  thought  well  to  have  any  other  know- 
ledge. The  scribal  institution  was  definitely 
established  in  the  time  of  Herod  the  Great, 
when  Hillel  and  Shammai,  the  famous  heads 
of  the  two  schools,  were  flourishing.  They 
were  then,  and  they  tended  to  become  more 
and  more,  the  spiritual  guides  of  the  Jews. 

Ezra's  Law  made  Judaism ;  but  we  must  not 
believe  that  it  succeeded  in  eliminating  all 
those  elements  of  the  older  religion  which  it 
had  proscribed  or  dropped.  In  the  same  way 
that  the  old  patriarchal  legends  survived  in 
the  form  given  to  the  Pentateuch  by  the 
sacerdotal  code,  so  many  primitive  beliefs  were 
fitted  on  to  the  transcendental  God.  That  God 
was    self-sufficing :    he    created    the   world  by 


Judaism  22 1 

his  word,  and  was  its  sole  governor.  His  word 
was  still  in  his  Law  for  the  guidance  of  his 
people  ;  and  there  was  no  more  necessity  for 
prophetical  visions,  or  revealing  dreams,  any- 
more than  for  angels  round  about  him.  The 
apocalyptic  literature  was  produced,  none  the 
less  ;  and  round  its  unique  deity  it  organized 
a  whole  celestial  court. 

In  the  primitive  Jahvism,  and  still  more  in 
that  of  the  prophets,  the  spirit  of  Yahweh 
tended  to  replace  the  spirits ;  and  when  the 
angel  of  Yahweh  was  mentioned,  his  personal 
manifestation  was  meant,  rather  than  the 
apparition  of  a  being  distinct  from  him. 
Heaven  and  earth  formed  a  single  world, 
in  which  heaven  was  less  important  than 
earth ;  because  Yahweh  lived  and  acted  more 
commonly  on  earth  than  in  heaven.  But  now 
the  God  was  raised  altogether  above  nature  ; 
and  they  soon  dared  not  even  pronounce  his 
name  of  Yahweh,  either  through  a  slightly 
superstitious  fear  of  a  word  connected  with 
so  great  a  majesty,  or  through  some  confused 
notion  that  a  proper  name  was  wholly  un- 
becoming in  the  sole  and  only  God.  Heaven 
became  a  world  distinct  from  earth  :  it  was 
the  divine  world,  where  the  Eternal  reigns  in 
glory,  and  which  is  in  opposition  to  the  human 
world,   where  God's   will   suffers    contradiction 


222     The  Religion  of  Israel 

until  it  pleases  him  to  enforce  it  on  earth  as 
in  heaven. 

And   the   divine  world   is   not   filled   by   God 
alone.      The   sons   of  God   had    functions   that 
were    but     ill-defined     alongside    of     the     old 
Yahweh  :    they  seem  to   have   belonged   chiefly 
to  an   old    popular   mythology,   which  did   not 
come  through  an  exclusively  Jahvist  tradition. 
Henceforward,    the     members     of    the     divine 
clan  are  the  servants  of  God:  they  are  always 
astral  powers,  patrons  of  the  nations,  and  the 
soldiery  of  heaven.     It  was  imagined  sometimes 
that     Yahweh    condemned     them,    imprisoned 
them,   killed   them,   or   at  least   reduced    them 
violently  to  obedience  when  he  was  displeased 
with   their    behaviour.      The   theory  of  Daniel 
was  more  correct.    In  him,  each  kingdom  has  its 
heavenly   chief;  and    the  empires  succeed   one 
another  as  their  patron  becomes  most  powerful 
on  high.     Michael  is  the  patron  of  the  Jewish 
people :     Gabriel,     the      angel     of     revelation. 
Gabriel  fights  with  the  angel  of  Persia,  because 
that  kingdom  is  condemned  to  perish ;  but,  as 
he  does  not  succeed  in  conquering,  Michael  goes 
to   help  him.     The   same   thing   happens  when 
the  angel  of  the  Greeks  has  to  be  put  down  ; 
and    Gabriel  had  helped  Michael  when  he  had 
failed  to  end   the   Chaldsean   empire.     For  the 
angels  of  the  empires  do  not  despoil  one  another 


Judaism  223 

of  the  primacy:  Michael  and  Gabriel  depose 
them  in  succession  when  the  hour  fixed  by 
the  prophetic  word  has  rung. 

Legions  of  celestial  spirits,  as  unnumbered 
as  the  stars,  with  which  they  are  more  or 
less  identical,  encompass  the  throne  of  God. 
Their  function  is  to  praise  the  creator  without 
ceasing :  to  make  up  for  the  homage  that 
paganism  robs  him  of  on  earth.  Angels  are 
the  messengers  and  interpreters  of  the 
divine  revelations.  Ezekiel  still  saw  Yahweh 
himself,  as  Isaiah  had  seen  him ;  but  angels, 
the  executors  of  the  divine  will,  have  come 
already  into  his  visions.  Zechariah  saw  only 
angels :  and  angels  instructed  Daniel.  The 
angels  thus  watched  over  all  things  :  over  the 
guidance  of  man,  as  of  the  elements.  God  is 
now  too  great  to  make  the  rain  and  snow  fall 
himself,  or  to  speak  to  men.  Inferior  ministers 
see  to  all  things,  according  to  his  orders. 

Thus,  on  one  hand,  the  primitive  Gods  and 
some  of  the  primitive  spirits,  to  which  must 
be  joined  the  cherubim  and  seraphim,  who 
seem  originally  to  have  been  personifications 
of  storm  clouds  and  lightnings,  at  least  if  they 
were  not  simply  guardian  geniU  conceived  in 
the  shape  of  fantastic  beasts,  all  came  to  be 
formed  into  a  body  of  celestial  powers,  ruled 
by  God ;    and  very  many   of  them  were   con- 


224     The   Religion   of  Israel 

fined  to  the  ministry  of  punishment.  On  the 
other  hand,  on  the  borders  of  that  region 
where  the  divine  influences  were  exercised,  in 
the  lower  world,  the  spirits  of  the  earth  were 
still  active  and  unquiet :  those  which  delighted 
in  waste  places,  in  ruins  and  in  deserts ;  the 
spirits  also  of  the  maladies  which  afflict  man- 
kind. They,  too,  like  the  angels,  formed  a 
multitude  without  number,  all  ready  to  be 
enlisted  in  Satan's  army. 

§  4 

Moreover,  it  has  been  believed  too  easily  that 
post-exilic  Judaism  is  to  be  found  wholly  in 
the  Law.  Undoubtedly  the  Law  moulded  the 
domestic  life  of  the  Jews  more  and  more,  also 
their  social  arrangements,  and  their  national 
life  so  far  as  they  had  one.  Until  the  rising 
of  the  Maccabees,  Judaism  was  a  petty  ecclesi- 
astical and  theocratic  State  under  the  suze- 
rainty of  Persia,  and  then  of  Macedonian  con- 
querors. The  entry  of  Pompey  into  Jerusalem 
(in  64  B.C.)  marks  the  close  of  a  short  period 
of  independence,  which  was  not  revived  by  the 
reign  of  Herod.  But  the  Asmonsean  monarchy 
existed  only  to  secure  the  supremacy  of  the 
Law,  since  it  was  born  of  a  revolt  against 
Hellenism,  which  first  encroached  and  then 
persecuted.     It  is  in  this  direction  that  Jewish 


Judai 


sm  225 


life  appears  to  ns  most  visible  and  stable. 
But  its  inward  forces  were  nourished  by  two 
sentiments,  which  are  usually  connected  with 
one  another,  and  which  soften  the  dry  and 
sterilizing  influences  of  legalism :  namely  per- 
sonal piety,  and  messianic  hope.  It  is  also 
proper  to  mention  a  certain  striving  of  Jewish 
thought  towards  philosophy,  by  a  meditation 
upon  human  destiny  and  the  principles  of 
right  living. 

The  pious  Israelite  of  post-exilian  times  is 
represented  in  the  Psalms,  of  which  only  one 
portion  seems  to  have  been  intended  at  first 
for  liturgical  use.  The  Psalms  express  the 
religion  of  the  heart,  the  devotion  of  indi- 
viduals ;  but  individuals  who  have,  so  to  speak, 
an  ecclesiastical  conscience,  a  lively  sense  of 
the  community.  The  wholly  personal  note  of 
these  prayers,  which  is  also  at  times  very 
national  and  Jewish,  should  not  surprise  us. 
Piety,  which  is  individual  religion,  derives  its 
source  necessarily  from  a  reverent  trust  in 
the  Infinite  ;  but  it  is  inclined  to  appropriate 
the  God  who  is  revealed  to  it,  and  to  be  dis- 
satisfied if  it  does  not  believe  itself  in  personal 
possession  of  the  supreme  good.  Such  is  the 
sentiment  shown  in  those  Psalms  which  are 
filled  with  the  living  God.  Perfect  piety,  how- 
ever,  while   possessing   God  entirely  for  itself, 

16 


2  26     The  Religion  of  Israel 

does  not  wish  to  exclude  any  one  from  the  same 
advantage.  Jewish  piety  was  more  filled  with 
hope  than  with  generosity ;  with  only  some 
rare  exceptions,  it  remained  more  or  less  per- 
suaded that  the  possession  of  God  was  a 
national  and  hereditary  possession  of  its  own 
In  reading  the  Psalms,  one  is  forced  to  own 
that,  for  all  pious  Jews,  it  was  good  to  live 
under  the  Law  : 

The  Law  of  Yahweh  is  an  undefiled  Law, 

Converting  the  soul  ; 
The  testimony  of  Yahweh  is  sure, 

And  giveth  wisdom  to  the  simple  ; 
The  statutes  of  Yahweh  are  right. 

And  rejoice  the  heart  ; 
The  commandment  of  Yahweh  is  pure, 

And  giveth  light  unto  the  eyes  ; 
The  fear  of  Yahweh  is  clean, 

And  endureth  for  ever  ; 
The  judgements  of  Yahweh  are  true. 

And  righteous  altogether  : 
More  to  be  desired  are  they  than  gold, 

Yea  than  much  fine  gold  ; 
Sweeter  also  than  honey. 

And  the  honey-comb  : 
Moreover  by  them  is  Thy  servant  taught. 

And  in  keeping  of  them. 

There  is  great  reward.* 

Messianism  was  the  answer  to  the  problem, 
which   troubled   the   sages,   about    the    destiny 

*  Psa.  xix.  7-11. 


Judaism  227 

of  man,  and  the  justice  of  God.  The  Law 
compelled  this  question  to  be  raised.  It 
promised  life  to  every  one  who  followed  its 
precepts ;  but  what  it  contemplated  above  all 
was  the  national  prosperity,  the  rewarding  of 
the  fidelity  of  all.  The  same  principle  of 
strict  retribution  did  not  fail  to  be  applied  to 
individuals ;  but,  if  it  were  already  puzzling  to 
discover  the  fulfilment  in  the  course  of  history, 
it  was  far  more  disconcerting  to  prove  the 
truth  in  individual  cases.  A  belief  in  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  only  appeared  late, 
and  later  still  was  any  notion  of  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul.  The  prophetic  religion 
banned  any  worship  of  the  dead,  and  it  would 
have  thought  it  an  outrage  to  God  to  declare 
men  immortal. 

The  dead  praise  not  thee,  Yahweh, 

Neither  all  they  that  go  down  into  silence  .  .  .* 

For  Sheol  t  cannot  praise  thee, 

Death  cannot  celebrate  thee  : 

They  that  go  down  into  the  pit 

Cannot  hope  for  thy  truth. 

The  living,  the  living,  he  shall  praise  thee.  ...  J 

Thus  spake  the  psalmists,  continually,  in 
pious   emulation.      Ancient   Israel    had    known 

*  Psa.  cxv.  17.  t  The  abode  of  the  dead. 

:j;  Isa.  xxxviii.  18-19. 


228     The  Religion  of  Israel 

the  worship  of  the  dead,  and  the  practices 
usually  connected  with  it  among  the  non- 
civilized.  The  dead  were  assimilated  more  or 
less  to  the  spirits,  and  they  were  dealt  with 
accordingly.  Even  the  calling  up  of  the  dead 
had  been  practised,  though  it  was  soon  held 
to  be  unlawful.  That  kind  of  divination  bor- 
dered on  magic,  and  became  easily  suspected 
by  religion.  It  is  related  that  Saul  had  put 
away  those  who  had  the  secret  of  it;  but,  on 
the  eve  of  his  death,  before  engaging  in  his 
last  battle  with  the  Philistines,  being  unable 
to  get  any  oracle  out  of  Yahweh,  he  went  to 
Endor,  to  consult  a  witch,  who,  in  spite  of  the 
royal  prohibition,  went  on  exercising  her 
trade.  The  scene  of  the  calling  up,  whether 
historical  or  no,  does  not  cease  to  be  instruc- 
tive. "  What  seest  thou  ? "  said  Saul  to  the 
woman. — "  I  see  a  God  coming  up  out  of  the 
earth."—"  What  form  is  he  of  ?  "— "  An  old 
man  cometh  up ;  and  he  is  covered  with  a 
robe."  And  Saul  perceived  that  it  was 
Samuel.*  Thus  the  dead  was  an  elohhn,  a 
supernatural  being,  a  spirit  of  the  grave,  which 
did  not  hinder  him  from  keeping  the  same 
dress  as  when  he  lived ;  and  his  first  word  was 
to  complain  of  being  troubled,  like  a  man 
whose  slumber  is  disturbed.  Neither  the  priests 
*  1  Sam.  xxviii.  13-14. 


Judaism  229 

nor  the  prophets  of  Yahweh  could  encourage 
these  superstitions.  But  they  had  not  ceased 
to  be  fashionable  even  in  the  time  of  Isaiah. 
Deuteronomy  forbad  them  strictly,  and  it  is 
said  that  Josiah  suppressed  them.  The  ancient 
practices  in  the  worship  of  the  dead  were 
turned  into  the  customs  of  mourning ;  and,  of 
the  popular  beliefs  about  the  dead,  there  re- 
mained only  the  notion  of  a  shadowy  survival, 
which  was  not  complete  annihilation,  but  was 
even  less  near  to  human  life. 

Job  wished  to  die  at  his  birth,  because  death 
was  a  perpetual  sleep : 

Now  I  should  have  Hen  down  and  been  quiet ; 

I  should  have  slept ;  then  should  I  have  been  at  rest : 

With  kings  and  councillors  of  the  earth, 

Who  built  themselves  mausoleums  ; 

Or  with  princes  that  had  gold, 

And  filled  their  houses  with  silver.  .  .  . 

There  the  wicked  cease  from  troubling, 

And  there  the  weary  be  at  rest : 

There  the  prisoners  are  at  ease  together  ; 

They  hear  not  the  voice  of  the  task-master. 

The  small  and  the  great  are  there 

And  the  slave  is  free  from  his  master.* 

This  question  of  the  grave  was  of  no  conse- 
quence to  faith,  because  there  was  neither 
happiness    nor   suffering    in    the   realm   of   the 

*  Job  iii.  13-15,  17-19. 


230      The  Religion  of  Israel 

dead,  neither  punishment  nor  reward.  Remu- 
neration, therefore,  had  to  be  placed  in  this 
life. 

By  the  progress  of  civilization  and  the 
movement  of  thought  in  the  times  of  the 
Persian  and  Greek  domination,  and  doubtless 
also  by  the  growth  of  individual  piety,  it 
came  to  be  asked  how  providential  justice 
could  be  demonstrated  by  facts,  or  even 
adjusted  with  realities.  Psalms  and  sapiential 
books  testify  that  the  grave  scandal  of  that 
time  was  the  misery  of  the  just  and  the 
felicity  of  the  wicked.  Perhaps  it  is  not  super- 
fluous to  say  that  by  the  "  just "  here  must 
be  understood  above  all  the  observers  of  the 
Law  ;  and  by  the  "  wicked,"  similarly,  not  only 
criminals  of  high  and  low  degree,  but  men 
who  were  too  free  in  thought  and  practice. 
The  eyes  were  shut  as  much  as  possible  to  the 
evidence ;  and  men  repeated  after  the  psalmists  : 

' '  I  have  been  young,  and  now  am  old, 
"Yet  saw  I  never  the  righteous  forsaken.""^ 

They  repeated  that  the  prosperity  of  the 
wicked  is  fleeting ;  and  passing,  too,  is  the 
tribulation  of  the  godly  man  :  that  the  latter 
is  blessed  after  his  death,  and  in  his  posterity ; 

*  Psa.  xxvii.  25. 


Judai 


sm  231 


that  the  former  is  cursed  in  his  tomb,  and 
punished  in  his  descendants.  But  all  the 
righteous  did  not  die  old,  and  some  of  them 
perished  in  misfortune.  Was,  then,  the  sin- 
cerity of  their  goodness  to  be  suspected,  or 
the  reality  of  their  deserving  ? 

The  problem,  as  we  know,  is  magnificently 
set  forth  in  Job,  where  an  old  legend  is  used 
as  a  framework  for  the  discussion.  The  friends 
of  Job  support  the  common  thesis,  that  good- 
ness is  always  recompensed :  and  Job  urges 
the  objections.  Against  those  who  wish  to 
believe  him  guilty  because  he  is  unfortunate, 
Job  does  not  rely  on  the  witness  of  his  own 
conscience :  he  appeals  to  a  divine  witness, 
which  in  the  end  is  given  him.  But  there  is 
no  solution.  Yahweh,  who  intervenes  to  wind 
up  the  debate,  only  declares  the  mystery  :  his 
justice  is  as  unfathomable  as  his  creative 
wisdom  and  the  effects  of  his  power.  It  must 
be  believed,  though  it  cannot  be  proved.  It  is 
only  asserted  that  a  good  man  may  be  hurt 
without  his  innocence  being  suspected,  and 
without  being  justified  himself  in  arraigning 
God.  Ordinary  faith  could  only  raise  itself 
to  this  height  with  difficulty.  We  can  see 
how  the  mass  of  believers,  in  a  crisis  like  the 
persecution  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  came  to 
accept  the  theory  of  a  resurrection. 


232     The  Religion  of  Israel 

Formerly  there  were  sages  who,  without 
speculating  differently  about  the  justice  of 
God,  professed  to  teach  men  the  art  of 
happiness.  It  was  the  art  of  right  living. 
But  the  sages  formerly  did  not  understand 
it  altogether  as  the  doctors  of  the  Law  did, 
though,  in  Ecclesiasticus,  sage  and  doctor 
coalesce.  From  the  standpoint  of  the  Law  and 
of  piety,  sin  is  a  fault  against  God:  from  the 
standpoint  of  wisdom  it  is  a  folly;  piety  thus 
becomes  prudence,  and  duty  interest.  All 
wisdom,  however,  is  a  gift  of  God,  and  revela- 
tion itself  is  wisdom,  since  it  teaches  how  to 
live  properly.  God  having  become  absolutely 
transcendent,  they  finished — and  was  it  only 
by  some  Hellenic  influence  ?  We  may  guess 
it,  though  it  is  less  easy  to  prove — they  finished 
by  conceiving  Wisdom  as  an  intermediary 
between  God  and  man :  it  was  she  who  had 
created  the  world,  and  who  taught  men.  Thus 
they  went  towards  the  conception  of  a  supreme 
reason,  the  cause  and  standard  of  all  intelli- 
gence. But  philosophical  speculation  was 
bound  to  be  arrested  sooner  or  later,  as  soon 
as  it  was  clearly  understood,  and  the  author 
of  Ecclesiasticus  so  taught,  that  the  highest 
and  fullest  manifestation  of  wisdom  is  con- 
tained in  the  Law.  Ultimately,  the  optimism 
of    the    sages    who    wrote    the    Proverbs    and 


Judai 


sm  233 


Ecclesiasticus  was  due  to  their  being  believers ; 
their  confidence  in  life  proceeded  from  their 
faith  in  Yahweh  as  the  protector  of  Israel : 
it  was  akin  to  the  messianic  hope. 

Where  that  hope  failed,  wisdom  became 
naturally  pessimist  and  even  sceptical.  This  is 
the  case  of  Ecclesiastes :  a  spirit  filled  with 
curiosity  about  all  subjects,  but  a  man  dis- 
illusioned about  all  things ;  steeped  enough  in 
Hellenism,  as  it  would  appear,  to  see  or  to 
guess  the  sterility  of  Jewish  particularism,  but 
not  enough  to  have  confidence  in  himself  and 
in  the  worth  of  reason.  The  pretended  Solomon 
confines  himself  to  saying  that  all  things  are 
vanity,  and  exceeding  vanity :  that  there  is 
nothing  new  under  the  sun ;  that  the  same  end 
waits  the  sage  and  the  senseless  ;  that  man  is 
bad,  and  woman  worse ;  that  over  all  is  the 
supremacy  of  chance.  There  is  no  hope  beyond 
the  tomb:  "a  living  dog  is  better  than  a  dead 
lion."  And  the  reason  is  that  "  the  living  know 
"  that  they  will  die,  while  the  dead  know 
"  nothing.  .  .  .  Whatsoever  thy  hand  findeth  to 
"  do,  do  it  with  thy  might ;  because  there  is 
"  neither  activity,  nor  thought,  nor  knowledge, 
"  nor  wisdom  in  the  Sheol  whither  thou  goest."  * 
For  the  rest,  Koheleth  does  not  deny  the  justice 
of  God  :  he  proclaims  only  that  it  is  incompre- 
*  Eccl.  ix.  4-5,  10. 


2  34     The  Religion  of  Israel 

hensible ;  therefore  let  us  fear  God,  and  en  joy- 
life  wisely.  But  feeling  for  religion  wanes 
when  the  community  is  wanting.  Koheleth  is 
no  longer  a  Jew,  but  he  is  not  yet  a  citizen 
of  the  world.  He  has  not  the  religion  of 
humanity.  All  he  stands  for  is  a  transcen- 
dental egoism.  We  learn  from  him  how  the 
Jewish  faith  could  destroy  itself.  We  must 
search  elsewhere  to  know  how  it  could  preserve 
itself,  and  triumph. 


MESSIANISM 


CHAPTER    VI 


MESSIANISM 


THE  capture  and  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem by  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  586,  made 
an  end  of  the  Jewish  nationahty.  The  brief 
time  of  independence  and  prosperity  under  the 
Asmonaean  rulers  was  merely  an  interlude  in 
the  history  of  a  development  which  was  ex- 
clusively religious.  As  that  new  monarchy  was 
a  pontificate,  it  experienced  internal  difficul- 
ties almost  as  soon  as  it  was  organized  ;  and 
we  may  question  if  it  developed  the  normal 
conditions  of  a  state  that  was  made  to  last. 
What  enabled  Judah  to  survive  was  its  reli- 
gion ;  and  its  religion  preserved  it  in  the  midst 
of  a  world  where  its  political  influence  was 
henceforth  insignificant.  Religion  alone  sus- 
tained it,  by  means  of  its  immovable  faith  in 
the  God  of  Israel,  and  in  the  fortune  which  he 
designed  for  his  chosen  people.  We  have  just 
seen    how    the    trial    of    their    faith    consisted 

237 


238     The  Religion  of  Israel 

actually  in  the  contradiction  between  facts  and 
theory,  when  the  latter  was  faced  impartially, 
and  its  principles  were  applied  to  individual 
lives.  But,  in  spite  of  everything,  hope  in  the 
triumph  of  a  nation  which  had  ceased  to  exist 
was  maintained  by  means  of  the  religion  which 
became  the  only  stay  and  tie  for  the  remnants 
of  the  ancient  people.  The  dream  was  a 
paradox,  but  it  was  not  therefore  sterilized, 
since  Christianity  issued  from  it.  And  now  it 
is  advisable  that  we   should   examine   it. 

§  1 

The  messianic  theory  exists  in  germ  in  that 
feeling  of  confidence  which  is  inspired  by 
prayer  ;  that  feeling  especially  which  a  religous 
body,  a  tribe  or  a  nation,  cherishes  with 
regard  to  its  heavenly  protector :  the  theory 
is  identical,  in  its  essence,  with  that  trust  in 
the  divine  protection  which  is  at  the  root 
of  all  worship.  The  expectation  of  glorious 
destinies  for  Israel  corresponded  to  the  exalted 
notions  which  had  been  formed  of  Yahweh.  It 
was  not  possible  to  imagine  an  exceedingly 
powerful  God  whose  people  would  not  be 
dowered  with  good  fortune.  But  if  the  expec- 
tation of  Israel  had  depended  only  on  that 
conviction,  it  would  have  differed  little  from 
the  trust  which    the  Assyrians  placed   in   their 


Messianism  239 


God  Ashur,  or  Nebuchadnezzar  in  his  God 
Marduk,  or  the  Romans  in  the  Gods  of  the 
Capitol  and  in  the  Genius  of  the  Eternal  City. 

Yahweh  was  not  only  a  very  great  God,  but 
a  just  God,  who  was  not  satisfied  with  the 
mere  external  dues  of  worship,  but  whose  chief 
requirements  were  in  the  moral  sphere.  That 
is  why,  as  soon  as  clear  hopes  were  formed 
about  the  glorious  destinies  of  Israel,  the  ful- 
filment of  those  hopes  was  made  dependent  on 
moral  conditions,  namely  on  the  practice  of 
righteousness  ;  or,  rather,  the  proclamation  of 
the  triumph  was  subordinated  to  that  of  a 
chastisement.  The  latter,  indeed,  it  would  seem, 
must  precede  the  former ;  and  it  was  far  more 
prominent  in  the  message  of  the  prophets 
until  the  fall  of  the  Judsean  monarchy.  There 
will  be  a  great  judgment  by  Yahweh  of  his 
faithful  people :  when  that  people  has  been 
duly  crushed,  the  righteous,  the  minority,  who 
shall  have  survived  the  trial,  will  enjoy  their 
God  in  peace,  and  will  taste  on  earth  an 
unmixed  happiness,  every  trouble  being  ex- 
pelled out  of  the  world  along  with  its  wicked- 
ness. 

This  conception  of  Israel's  future  may  be 
seen  in  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  century. 
But  it  is  plain  that,  in  earlier  times,  the 
Israelites     had   counted   more    upon    Yahweh's 


240     The  Religion   of  Israel 

help  in  battle,  notwithstanding  some  defeats, 
and  on  his  material  benefits,  in  spite  of  natural 
visitations,  than  they  dreamed  of  moral  condi- 
tions being  attached  to  his  favours.  The  hope 
could  not  be  purer  than  the  religious  concep- 
tion. For  long,  no  doubt,  it  was  held  that 
fat  victims  were  the  surest  means  of  gaining 
the  divine  support.  The  messianic  notion  had 
its  course  of  evolution,  like  the  conception  of 
God ;  and  they  grew   concurrently. 

The  felicity  of  the  righteous  was  the  definite 
object  of  the  messianic  kingdom ;  but  it  was 
conceived  primarily  as  the  reign  of  God,  and 
formerly  as  the  overwhelming  victory  of 
Yahweh.  And  had  not  Yahweh  always  been 
the  God  of  glorious  battles  ?  The  prophets 
had  never  ceased  to  conceive  him  as  a  re- 
doubtable warrior.  It  is  he  who  breaks,  when 
he  wills,  the  pride  of  the  conquerors  whom 
they  call  Sennacherib,  Nebuchadnezzar,  or 
Antiochus.  In  the  threats  which  Isaiah  fiung 
at  the  King  of  Assyria,  in  those  of  the 
prophets  who  foretold  the  ruin  of  the  Chaldsean 
power,  in  the  account  of  the  defeat  which, 
according  to  Ezekiel,  Gog  the  fabulous  King 
of  Magog  is  to  suffer  in  Palestine,  in  the 
premonitions  of  Daniel  about  the  death  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  Yahweh  shows  himself 
as  the  invincible  enemy    of  every  pagan  king 


Messianism  241 

As  a  God  jealous  of  his  glory,  he  is  the 
enemy  of  the  idolatrous  powers;  as  God  of 
Israel,  he  is  the  avenger  of  his  people.  He 
is  always  the  same  God,  whom  the  song  of 
Deborah  presents  rushing  from  Sinai,  over  the 
hills  of  Seir  and  the  plains  of  Edom,  to  fight 
with  Israel  against  Sisera.  The  point  of  view 
is  enlarged  ;  but  the  warm  feeling  of  religious 
and  patriotic  confidence  inspired  both  the 
ancient  canticle  and  the  latest  prophecies.  That 
is  why  the  very  phrasing  of  this  sentiment  is 
passed  on  with  it  from  century  to  century, 
the  image  of  Yahweh-Sabaoth,  the  God  of  vic- 
torious battles. 

There  is  another  victory  which  Yahweh 
accomplished  at  the  beginning  of  the  world, 
and  which  he  follows  up  daily:  that  which  is 
shown  in  the  ordering  of  nature.  It  is  notorious 
that  the  old  legends  of  the  creation  did  not 
shrink  from  portraying  Yahweh  bridling  the 
monsters  of  chaos.  That  strife  never  ended; 
because  the  Hebrew  stories  of  the  creation,  like 
the  other  primitive  cosmogonies,  were  at  bottom 
only  a  transference  into  the  farthest  past  of 
experiences  which  were  being  repeated  in  the 
present.  The  passing  of  day  into  night,  of 
spring  into  winter,  the  death  of  nature  and 
its  annual  resurrection,  were  all  divine  works : 
it  was  by  the  power  of  beneficent  deities,  who 

17 


242      The   Religion   of  Israel 

were  stronger  than  the  spirits  of  death  and 
darkness,  that  light,  order,  and  life  were  pro- 
duced in  the  world.  Creation  was  nothing  else 
than  this  great  work  in  its  beginning,  when 
the  Gods  made  the  first  day  issue  out  of  dark- 
ness ;  when  the  shapes  of  heaven  and  earth 
were  first  moulded ;  when  the  vernal  foliage 
sprang  first  out  of  the  soil ;  when  the  fish  took 
possession  of  the  waters,  the  birds  of  the  air, 
men  and  beasts  of  the  solid  earth :  in  spite  of 
the  opposition  raised  at  the  beginning  by  the 
monstrous  deities  of  chaos,  with  an  audacity 
that  was  all  the  greater  because  hitherto  it 
had  been  invincible.  Yahweh,  too,  had  himself 
beaten  Rahab  and  his  allies :  he  held  the  sea 
enchained.  When  the  great  day  of  his  glory 
shall  come,  he  will  complete  his  work  in  nature ; 
and  then  nothing  dark,  harmful,  or  unpleasing 
will  be  left  in  it. 

For  these  reasons,  Isaiah  describes  ferocious 
beasts  as  changed  suddenly  into  harmless  beings, 
as  no  doubt  it  was  imagined  that  they  had  been 
at  first ;  the  anonymous  prophets  of  the  captivity 
made  the  wilderness  blossom  solely  in  honour 
of  the  exiles'  return;  Ezekiel  made  the  holy 
land  into  a  paradise,  where  even  the  tree  of  life 
will  grow  and,  what  we  do  not  find  in  our 
stories  of  Genesis,  a  well  or  stream  of  life; 
Daniel   promises   an   even   greater   marvel,  the 


Messianism  243 

victory  of  Yahweh  over  death,  and  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  just ;  the  seer  of  the  Apocalypse  goes 
farther,  and  at  the  end  of  time  has  the  sea  itself 
destroyed,  that  last  remnant  of  the  chaotic 
ocean,  the  haunt  of  the  beaten  Dragon,  which 
will  serve  him  no  longer  as  a  refuge,  since  it 
will  have  vanished,  and  the  Dragon  himself  will 
be  cast  into  the  fire. 

The  oppressor  of  Israel  appeared  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  pagan  world  in  rebellion  against 
Yahweh ;  he  was,  in  the  political  and  religious 
spheres  of  contemporary  history,  what  Tiamut- 
Rahab  were  in  the  order  of  nature,  and  in 
legends  of  the  cosmogony.  He  was  naturally 
compared  to  them,  and  then  identified  with 
them.  It  was  not  arbitrarily,  with  the  caprice 
of  a  symbolist  poet,  that  Daniel  figured  the 
pagan  empires  under  the  shapes  of  animals. 
They  were  the  successors,  so  to  speak,  of  the 
monsters  which  the  traditions  of  cosmogony 
had  banished  to  the  frontiers  of  creation,  and 
which  re-entered  with  them  again  into  history 
so  as  to  be  crushed  finally  by  the  hand  of  the 
almighty  God.  While  it  was  Satan  himself 
who,  for  a  still  better  reason,  was  identified 
with  the  old  enemy,  the  idolatrous  and  perse- 
cuting empire  was  always  the  Beast,  the  mon- 
ster who  represented  on  earth  the  power  of 
the  Dragon,  and  who  must  share  in  his  ruin 
as  he  had  shared  in  his  proud  impiety. 


244     The   Religion   of  Israel 

The  character  of  Satan  grew  in  the  course 
of  centuries.  He  appeared  first  at  the  return 
from  the  captivity.  Then  he  was  only  a  mem- 
ber of  the  celestial  society,  who  had  his  place 
among  the  sons  of  God,  the  beings  who  form 
the  court  of  Yahweh.  He  exercised  over  men 
a  sort  of  inspection,  which  was  not  tutelary, 
because  at  the  divine  tribunal  he  was  the 
accuser  of  the  guilty  and  the  recommender  of 
punishment.  He  impersonated  in  some  way  an 
aspect  of  the  divinity  which  the  character  of 
Yahweh  had  ended  by  out-growing,  namely  a 
sort  of  jealous  curiosity  which  spies  out  human 
weaknesses  and  arranges  trials  to  show  them 
up,  rather  than  to  give  men  the  opportunity 
to  surmount  them.  Such  he  appears  in  the 
Book  of  Job.  And  it  may  be  said  that  his 
function  as  a  rather  ill-natured  critic  tended  to 
change  him  into  a  declared  enemy  of  those 
whom  he  accused :  finally,  he  became  the 
enemy  of  God  himself,  being  opposed  to  all 
his  merciful  plans  for  his  own  people  and  for 
mankind.  He  was  identified  with  the  snake 
of  Eden  and  the  monster  of  chaos,  so  that  he 
came  to  represent  in  the  world  and  in  history 
that  evil  power  which  is  opposed  to  the  reign 
of  God.  He  became  the  head  of  the  wicked 
spirits.  All  the  elements  of  his  personality  are 
mythological,  but  they  are  taken  from  various 


Messianism  245 

sources;  and  if,  in  the  latter  phase  of  his 
evolution,  he  resembles  the  Ahriman  of  Persian 
dualism,  this  does  not  imply  that  the  Persian 
influence  can  explain  him  completely.  That 
influence  served  rather  to  make  him  definite 
than  to  create  him. 

Amos,  as  we  have  said  above,  seems  to  have 
stopped  short  at  the  prospect  of  a  judgment 
of  Israel  by  Yahweh.  It  would  have  been  a 
victory  without  results,  and  with  all  the 
appearances  of  a  defeat.  Hosea  foresaw  a 
reconciliation  of  Yahweh  with  his  people,  after 
their  chastisement.  Isaiah  waited  for  the  in- 
auguration of  a  reign  of  justice,  in  which  the 
small  number  of  elect  will  be  ruled  by  a  king 
after  God's  heart.  Jeremiah  was  chiefly  the 
prophet  of  chastisement,  but  he  did  not  believe 
in  the  final  ruin  of  his  people.  While  the 
dreadful  siege,  which  was  to  end  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Jewish  state,  had  already  begun  he 
bought  a  field  in  his  native  town,  and  executed 
all  the  deeds  of  the  contract,  to  show  that 
Judah  would  revive,  and  that  there  would  be 
a  future  for  Yahweh's  people.  The  prophet 
seems  to  have  associated  the  remnant  of 
Ephraim  with  the  remnant  of  Judah.  Yahweh 
will  reunite  his  scattered  children,  under  a 
prince  of  the  house  of  David,  who  will  make 
the  right  triumph.     In  these  dreams  of  happi- 


246     The   Religion  of  Israel 

ness,  the  Gentiles  have  no  share :  the  foreigners 
must  be  kept  in  awe,  or  destroyed  by  the  God 
of  Israel,  or  driven  out  by  fear,  or  struck  with 
wonder  by  the  puissance  of  Yahweh.  Of  their 
conversion,  properly  speaking,  there  is  no  ques- 
tion. 

When  Jerusalem  had  fallen,  and  the  restora- 
tion of  the  Davidic  monarchy  appeared  either 
impossible  or  hardly  desirable,  the  messianic 
notion  was  changed  in  form.  Ezekiel  gave  only 
a  very  attenuated  function  to  the  prince  of  the 
future  Israel :  he  gratified  himself  by  imagining 
a  religious  society,  living  round  the  temple,  con- 
secrated as  it  were  to  its  worship,  happy  in  its 
separation  from  the  world ;  a  kingdom  of  litur- 
gical felicity,  whose  coming  Nehemiah,  Ezra, 
and  the  Law  itself,  tried  to  bring  about :  the 
nations  would  not  succeed  in  troubling  it ;  the 
invasion  of  Gog,  the  King  of  Magog,  symbolises 
the  last  attempt  of  oriental  paganism  against 
the  kingdom  of  the  saints ;  and  this  attack, 
which  the  author  of  the  Johannine  Apocalypse 
will  reproduce  later,  is  a  kind  of  tragic  interlude 
in  the  happiness  of  the  elect,  which  nothing 
afterwards  shall  disturb. 

In  the  Second  Isaiah,  the  triumph  of  Yahweh 
is  confused  with  the  return  from  exile  and  the 
restoration  of  Jerusalem :  God  will  guide  his 
people  through  the  wilderness  ;  the  nations  will 


Messianism  247 

partake  in  the  happiness  of  Israel,  but  rather 
as  clients  and  tributaries,  than  as  people  ad 
mitted  to  a  full  share  of  messianic  prosperity 
Those  parts  of  the  book,  however,  which  deal 
with  the  Servant  of  Yahweh  present  Israel  as 
the  missionary  of  God  to  the  Gentiles,  whose  con- 
version is  annovinced.  The  ideal  and  righteous 
Israel  has  atoned  by  suffering  for  the  historical 
and  sinful  Israel.  Yahweh  will  return  again 
to  Zion,  and  his  faithful  will  come  back  with 
him.  No  uncircumcised  shall  tread  the  ground 
of  the  holy  city.  There  shall  be  no  more  sorrows 
and  tears.  Jerusalem  will  be  the  paradise 
of  God. 

The  Messianic  king  reappears    in  the  second 
portion  of  Zechariah. 

Rejoice  greatly,  O  daughter  of  Zion  ; 

Shout  with  joy,  O  daughter  of  Jerusalem  I 

Behold,  thy  king  cometh  luito  thee  : 

He  is  just  and  conquering  ; 

Lowly,  and  seated  upon  an  ass, 

Even  upon  a  colt,  the  foal  of  an  ass, 

He  will  cause  to  disappear  the  chariots  of  Ephraim, 

And  the  horses  of  Jerusalem  ; 

The  bow  of  war  shall  be  destroyed. 

His  dominion  shall  be   from  sea  to  sea. 

And  from  the  river  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.* 

The  failure  of  these  gorgeous  hopes  was  no 
'^  Zech.  ix.  9-10. 


248     The  Religion  of  Israel 

discouragement  to  faith.  Israel,  stirred  up  by- 
its  reformers,  entered  resolutely  on  the  practice 
of  the  Law,  convinced  that  the  divine  promises 
would  accomplish  themselves  when  the  people 
had  risen  to  the  height  of  their  providential 
vocation.  Above  all,  in  critical  times,  they 
consulted  the  ancient  books,  so  as  to  draw  from 
them  consolation  for  the  present  and  encourage- 
ment for  the  future.  They  believed  that  not 
a  single  word  of  those  oracles  would  fail,  and 
they  waited  with  a  feverish  anxiety  for  the 
fulfilment  which  always  lingered.  The  way  in 
which  Daniel  interprets  the  seventy  years, 
which  Jeremiah  had  fixed  as  the  duration  of 
the  captivity,  shows  how  they  applied  ancient 
prophecies  to  new  circumstances,  by  methods 
of  symbolical  interpretation  :  the  seventy  years 
of  the  captivity,  which  ought  to  end  in  the 
kingdom  of  God,  are  seventy  weeks  of  years, 
which  must  elapse  between  the  exile  and  the 
great  event.  The  Book  of  Daniel  was  written 
in  view  of  the  persecution  of  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes,  as  the  second  part  of  Isaiah  was  with 
a  foresight  of  the  conquest  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus. 
Nevertheless,  they  expected  the  salvation  of 
God  in  the  immediate  future.  The  more  im- 
minent their  peril  became,  the  nearer  they 
thought  must  be  Yahweh's  miraculous  inter- 
vention.     They   imagined    the   time   had  come 


Messianism  249 

when  the  Kingdom  of  God  should  replace  the 
persecuting  and  idolatrous  empires  of  the  world. 
It  is  easy  to  see  in  Daniel  how  the  experience 
of  the  past  has  enlarged  the  horizon  of  the 
prophets.  Instead  of  simply  facing  the  present 
situation  and  announcing  a  near  crisis,  with 
a  glorious  restoration  of  the  true  Israel,  the 
new  prophet  looks  back,  perhaps  many  centuries, 
and  designs  a  setting  into  which  Bossuet  was 
not  afraid  of  adjusting  universal  history.  He 
sees  four  empires  which  followed,  by  absorbing, 
one  another :  and  of  which  the  last,  more  than 
any  of  its  predecessors,  gave  a  proof  of  its  inso- 
lence to  Yahweh  and  of  cruelty  to  his  people. 
Through  their  connexion,  these  four  empires 
were  but  one ;  the  empire  of  idolatry,  the 
kingdom  of  evil  and  error  which  Yahweh  allows 
the  powers  of  darkness  to  set  in  motion  against 
his  people,  to  chastise  and  purify  them.  The 
empire  of  this  world  must  succumb,  giving  place 
to  the  empire  of  God ;  and  the  righteous  who 
have  died  will  rise  again  to  have  their  part 
in  it. 

§  2 

"  At  that  time,"  said  the  angel  Gabriel  to  the 
pseudo-Daniel,  "shall  Michael  stand  up,  the 
*'  great  prince  which  standeth  for  the  children 
"of   thy   people  ;   and  there  shall  be  a  time  of 


250     The  Religion  of  Israel 

"trouble,  such  as  never  was  since  there  was  a 
"  nation  even  to  that  same  time  :  and  at  that 
"  time  thy  people  shall  be  delivered,  every  one 
"  that  shall  be  found  written  in  the  book.  And 
"many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the 
"  earth  shall  wake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and 
"some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt. 
"  And  they  that  be  wise  shall  shine  as  the  bright- 
"  ness  of  the  firmament ;  and  they  that  turn 
"many  to  righteousness,  as  the  stars  for  ever 
"  and  ever."  *  The  last  verses  which  have  been 
added  to  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  and  which  must 
be  of  about  the  same  period  as  Daniel,  explain 
the  fate  of  the  damned,  and  make  their  suffer- 
ings an  ingredient  in  the  happiness  which  awaits 
the  elect.  "And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that 
"from  one  new  moon  to  another,  and  from 
"one  sabbath  to  another,  shall  all  flesh  come 
"  to  worship  before  me,  saith  the  Lord.  And 
"they  shall  go  forth,  and  shall  look  upon  the 
"carcases  of  the  men  that  have  transgressed 
"  against  me  ;  for  their  worm  shall  not 
"  die,  neither  shall  their  fire  be  quenched ; 
"and  they  shall  be  an  abhorring  unto  all 
"  flesh."  f  It  is  evident  that  the  unlimited 
burning  of  these  corpses  is  the  punishment  of 
the  individuals  of  whom  they  were  the  bodies. 
The  inferno  of  the  damned  exists  alongside  of 
*  Dan.  xii.  1-3.  f  Isa.  Ixvi.  23-4. 


Messianism  251 

Jerusalem  the  blessed,  and  the  fire  of  Gehenna 
burns  now  in  the  same  place  where  the  pyres 
of  Moloch  used  to  flare.  Thus  eschatology 
acquired  the  ingredients  which  were  yet  want- 
ing to  it  :  resurrection  and  judgment,  ever- 
lasting happiness  of  the  good,  everlasting 
torment  of  the  wicked.  These  are  the  sub- 
jects which  the  greater  number  of  the  apo- 
calypses will  work  out,  though  for  a  long  time 
a  certain  vagueness  adhered  to  these  beliefs, 
and  they  were  not  added  immediately  to  the 
general  and  ordinary  faith  of  the  Jews.  Tobit, 
even  Baruch,  the  Assumption  of  Moses,  the 
First  Book  of  Maccabees  ignored  the  resurrec- 
tion :  the  Second  Book  of  Maccabees  mentions 
it,  but  in  the  manner  of  an  apologist  who 
argues  with  objectors.  In  fact,  not  only  the 
Samaritans,  but  the  Sadducees,  the  Jewish 
priesthood,  did  not  accept  it. 

This  theory  of  the  resurrection  appears  all 
at  once  in  Daniel  in  a  form  which  betrays 
its  origin,  one  might  even  say  its  necessity. 
It  is  not  yet  all  men  who  rise,  but  "  many  of 
the  dead  "  ;  those  who  had  held  relations  with 
the  God  of  Israel,  either  by  obeying  or  by 
opposing  him,  that  is  the  righteous  and  their 
persecutors.  Neither  the  resurrection  nor  the 
judgment  is  universal.  Each  is  referred  directly 
to   the    welfare   of   Israel,    but   is    not  applied 


252     The  Religion  of  Israel 

generally.  It  is  a  solution  of  the  special  crisis 
and  problem  which  Judaism  has  to  face  in  the 
persecution  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  There 
are  martyrs  now,  and  they  are  dead ;  but  who 
will  venture  to  say  that  they  will  have  no 
part  in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  which  is  so 
near  ?  They  should  be  among  the  first  in  it : 
therefore  they  will  live  again.  There  were 
also  renegades,  who  denied  the  religion  of 
their  fathers,  and  who  helped  the  enemy  in 
persecuting  their  brethren ;  can  it  be  that 
those  of  them  who  are  dead,  too,  will  by  that 
death  escape  the  punishment  they  deserve? 
The  latter  will  come  back  also,  to  undergo 
the  eternal  shame  that  is  their  due.  It  is  the 
spontaneous  demand  of  faith.  When  judgment 
and  resurrection  come  to  be  spoken  about  for 
all  the  human  race,  the  notions  will  be  at- 
tached to  an  end  of  the  world,  and  a  cosmic 
regeneration.  Here  a  certain  reflection  is 
manifested,  and  the  direct  influence  of  some 
foreign  teaching  may  be  more  easily  admitted. 
Even  so  far  as  it  bears  on  the  fate  of  Israel, 
the  resurrection  implies  a  complete  evolution 
in  the  ancient  beliefs  about  the  dead,  and 
in  the  very  notion  of  God.  Formerly  the 
kingdom  of  the  dead  was  a  region  into  which 
the  power  of  Yahweh  had  not  extended  ;  and 
the    dead    might    be    treated    as    spirits,   they 


Messianism  253 

were  beyond  religion.  But  now,  no  limits 
were  set  to  the  divine  power:  if  one  rose  to 
heaven,  God  is  there ;  if  one  sunk  under  the 
earth,  he  is  there  also.  Thus  there  was  no 
reason  why  his  justice  should  not  be  exercised 
beyond  death.  And  the  conscience  of  the 
pious  revolted  against  admitting  that  death 
could  separate  him  finally  from  his  God.  The 
cares  of  personal  salvation,  and  the  principle 
of  a  retribution  according  to  merit,  both  led 
straight  to  a  notion  of  justice  and  of  an  ex- 
tended life  beyond  the  tomb.  That  justice 
meant  the  judgment  of  God,  and  that  life 
meant  the  resurrection  ;  because  they  had 
not  reached  the  Greek  notion  of  a  spiritual 
and  immortal  soul.  That  which  survived  in 
death  was  not  an  imperishable  soul,  it  was 
the  shade  of  the  individual ;  in  order  that 
the  individual  should  live,  in  spite  of  death, 
he  had  to  rise  again.  Thus  Enoch,  Moses, 
and  Elijah  were  imagined  always  living.  By 
the  power  of  Yahweh,  their  lot  might  become 
that  of  all  the  righteous. 

This  belief  imposed  itself  by  what  may  be 
described  as  its  actuality.  It  was  united  closely 
to  the  belief  in  a  great  judgment,  to  the  fevered 
expectation  of  God's  kingdom,  which  they 
desired  to  think  of  as  imminent.  The  more 
unhappy  they  were,  the    nearer  they   believed 


2  54     The  Religion  of  Israel 

themselves  to  the  end  ;  to  that  divine  interven- 
tion which  would  turn  the  anguish  of  the 
righteous  into  final  happiness,  and  into  ever- 
lasting punishment  the  exalting  insolence  of 
the  wicked.  The  imagination  revelled  in  the 
providential  circumstances  of  that  happy  event, 
which  was  decreed  in  heaven,  of  which  the 
prophetic  indications  were  searched  out  from 
the  sacred  books.  Elijah,  for  instance,  who  had 
been  taken  to  heaven,  must  return  ;  even  before 
Daniel,  there  were  speculations  about  it.  The 
last  verses  of  Malachi,  which  seem  to  have 
been  added  later,  though  the  author  of  Eccle- 
siasticus  knew  them,  attributed  to  him  a 
ministry  of  reconciliation  before  "the  great 
and  terrible  day  of  Yahweh."  *  Ecclesiasticus 
adds  that  he  will  "  restore  the  tribes  of  Jacob."! 
Elsewhere  it  is  an  angel  who  inaugurates  the 
reign  of  God:  in  Daniel,  it  is  Michael,  the 
angel  of  the  chosen  people.  These  interven- 
tions replaced  that  of  the  messiah-king  ;  but 
the  apocalyptic  tradition  found  a  way  of 
amalgamating  the  two  notions. 

One    of    the    Psalms    of    Solomon,    so-called, 
expresses  itself  thus  about  the  messianic  king  : — 

Be   careful,  O  Lord,  to  raise  up  their  king,    the  son  of 
David. 


Mai.  iv.  23-24.  f  Ecclus.  xlviii.  10. 


Messianism  255 


At  the  time   appointed   by   thee,    so    that  he    may   rule 

Israel  thy  servant. 
Gird  him  with  power,   to  crush  the  unrighteous  tyrants, 
To    clear    Jerusalem    of     the    heathen    who    oppress    it 

miserably. 
In   wisdom   and  justice  may  he   lay  waste   the   country 

of  the  sinners  ; 
May  he   break    the    pride    of    sinners  like   the    potter's 

vessel ; 
With  a  rod  of  iron  he  shall  destroy  their  being, 
And    with    the    breath    of    his    mouth    will   he    utterly 

destroy  the  heathen. 
May  the  nations  at  his  threatening  flee  before  him, 
And   may   he   punish   the   sinners   for   the    imaginations 

of  their  heart. 
Then    will    he    gather    an    holy  people,    and    rule   over 

them  in  righteousness. 
And  he   will   judge   the    tribes    of    the   people   who   are 

sanctified  by  the  Lord,  his  God. 
He  will   not   suffer  unrighteousness   to  remain  amongst 

them. 
And   no    man    given    to    wickedness    shall   dwell   among 

them  ; 
For  he  shall  know  them  all  as  the  sons  of  God. 
He  shall  divide  them  the  land  according  to  their  tribes, 
Neither  settler  nor  stranger  shall  dwell  among  them. 
He   shall    judge    peoples    and    nations    with   equity   and 

wisdom. 
So  long  as  they  serve  him,  he  will  hold  the  Gentiles  in 

his  yoke 
And  he  will  extol  the  Lord  openly  before  the  whole  earth. 

He    will    cause    Jerusalem    to   be   pure   and   holy,    as   at 

the  beginning, 
So  that  the  Gentiles   shall   come   from  the   ends   of   the 

earth  to  behold  her  glory, 


256     The   Religion  of  Israel 

And  their  enfeebled  children  shall  bring  presents  ; 
And  they  shall  see  the  glory  which  the  Lord,  his  God, 

hath  fulfilled  in  him. 
And  he  shall  be  the  righteous  king  over  them,  taught 

by  God  ; 
No  iniquity  shall  be  among  them  in  his  time  ; 
For  they  shall  all  be  holy,  and  their  king  shall  be  the 

anointed  of  the  Lord. 
He  shall  not  trust  in  horses,  in  horsemen  and  bows  ; 
He   shall  not  heap  up  gold  and  silver  for  his  warfare. 
Neither  will  he  put  his  trust  in  numbers  in  the  day  of 

battle.  .  .  . 
He   shall   himself   be  free  from   sin,    to    rule   a   mighty 

people. 
To  chastise  their  leaders,  and  to  destroy  sinners  by  the 

power  of  his  word. 
While   he   liveth   he  shall   not   be   feeble   in  the   service 

of  his  God, 
For  God  will  strengthen  him  with  his  holy  spirit. 
And    make    him    wise    in    counsel    with    strength    and 

righteousness. 
The   blessing   of   the   Lord    shall   make   him    of    a    good 

courage, 
And  he  shall  not  fail.* 

This  is  a  modest  ideal  and  sparing  in  the  mira- 
culous, it  is  due  rather  to  the  prophetic  litera- 
ture than  to  Daniel  and  the  apocalypses.  The 
Messiah  is  the  king  and  type  of  righteousness, 
but  he  is  not  raised  above  humanity.  He  is  a 
personage  less  supernatural  and  transcendent 
than  Elijah  or  Michael.     He  is  given  differently 

*  Psa.  of  Solomon  xvii.  21-33,  36-38. 


Messianism  257 

in  that  part  of  the  Book  of  Enoch  which  is 
called  The  Parables,  and  which  seems  to  have 
been  written  about  the  end  of  the  reign 
of  Alexander  Jannseiis  (104-78).  There  the 
Messiah  bears  the  names  of  The  Elect  and  Son 
of  Man,  after  the  passage  in  Daniel  where  the 
Man  symbolises  the  reign  of  the  saints,*  which 
is  to  succeed  the  pagan  empires,  typified  by  the 
beasts.  But  the  Messiah  is  not  really  one  of  the 
human  family :  he  is  "  The  heavenly  man "  of 
Saint  Paul,  created  by  God  from  all  eternity, 
but  kept  in  heaven  till  his  manifestation  in  the 
last  time.  "Before  the  sun  was  made,  or  the 
"signs  of  the  Zodiac,  and  the  stars  of  heaven, 
"his  name  was  uttered  before  the  Lord  of 
"spirits.  .  .  .  All  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth 
"  shall  bow  down  before  him.  ...  It  is  for  this 
"that  he  hath  been  chosen  and  hidden  before 
"the  Lord  from  before  the  creation  of  the 
"  world."  f  In  the  day  of  the  resurrection  The 
Elect  will  gather  the  just  and  the  saints.  He 
was  only  conceived  as  pre-existing  in  relation 
to  his  eschatological  functions;  and  he  did  not 
intervene,  like  John's  Logos,  in  the  creation  of 
the  world  and  the  history  of  mankind. 

The  hopes  of  the  Jews  were  thus  clothed  in 
forms  that  were  various  enough,  and,  judged 
only  by  the  literature,  it  might  be  thought  that 

*  Dan.  vii.  13.  t  Enoch  xlviii.  3,  6. 

18 


258      The  Religion  of  Israel 

the  person  of  tlie  Messiah  did  not  count  for 
much.     But  it  appears  certain  that  the  people 
were  more  occupied   than   the  books  with   the 
expected    Hberator,     and     that     for     him     the 
national  independence  was  a  matter  of  the  first 
importance.     The  pious  and  righteous  prince  of 
the  Psalms  of  Solomon  was  acceptable  to  the 
devout,  and  the  heavenly  man  of  Enoch  to  the 
theologians ;    but    the    first-comer    who    spoke 
about  the  liberty  of  Israel  was  the  favourite  of 
the  populace.      The  historian  Josephus  records 
many  instances  of  adventurers  who  thus  gained 
credit.     Judas   the  Galilean,  who   stirred   up  a 
revolt  over  the  enrolment  of  Quirinius,  declared 
that  it  was  shameful  and  heinous  to  pay  taxes 
to    the    Romans,    considering    that    the    Jews 
should     have     no     master     but     God.       Those 
were   the   principles   which   roused    uneducated 
believers.      During   the   siege  of  Jerusalem   by 
Titus,  they  never  tired  of  waiting  for  a  mani- 
festation from  heaven,  to  save  the  city  and  the 
temple.     In  the  time  of  Hadrian,  Barcochba  got 
himself    recognised    as    Messiah,    and    he    was 
greeted  in  that  capacity  by  Akiba,  one  of  the 
most  learned  rabbis  of  his  age.     The  ideal  of 
Jesus  was  only  popular  through  the  simplicity 
of  its  conceptions :  it  was  not  so  at  all  through 
the  purity  of  its  moral  characteristics,  nor  by 
the  depth  of  its  religious  sentiment,  which  relied 


Messianism  259 

upon  God  alone  for  the  avenging  act  by  which 
the  natural  freedom  of  the  kingdom  of  the  just 
would  be  established. 

Speaking  generally,  it  may  be  said  that  all 
those  who  talked  in  those  days  about  the  king- 
dom of  God  and  its  coming,  about  the  Messiah 
and  his  reign,  were  sure  to  find  some  believers. 
No  one  was  exacting  about  proofs  and  evidence : 
only  the  conclusion  mattered.  If,  by  an  impos- 
sibility, any  one  had  come  forward  to  expose 
the  spurious  Daniel,  by  showing  that  he  was  an 
ignoramus  in  his  history  of  the  kings  of  Baby- 
lon ;  that  he  was  mistaken  when  he  introduced 
an  empire  of  the  Medes  between  the  Chaldaean 
and  Persian  empires ;  that  he  did  not  know 
even  the  duration  of  the  latter,  the  censor 
would  have  merely  wasted  his  time  over  this 
learning  and  criticism.  The  dark  language  of 
the  apocalypses  always  lends  itself  to  the  sub- 
tilties  of  exegesis  and  the  subterfuges  of  apolo- 
gists. A  people  that  is  greedy  in  hopes  does  not 
trouble  about  the  foundation  for  the  promises 
made  to  it.  At  the  time  of  Antiochus,  messianic 
hope  did  not  lead  to  a  kingdom  of  God,  but  to  a 
temporary  restoration  of  the  Jewish  nationality. 
Undeniably  it  harboured  a  great  deal  of  illu- 
sion ;  and  if  it  could  inspire  much  heroism,  it 
could  also  lead  by  blind  fanaticism  to  the 
gravest  disasters. 


26o     The  Religion  of  Israel 

The  popular  imagination  was  assuredly  more 
stirred  by  the  material  forms  in  which  the 
announcement  of  God's  kingdom  was  expressed 
than  with  the  spiritual  and  moral  basis  which 
underlay  the  apocalyptic  visions,  as  formerly 
the  message  of  the  prophets.  They  pondered 
more  upon  the  revolution  that  God  was  thought 
to  be  preparing  than  upon  the  conditions  of 
righteousness  which  were  necessary  for  sharing 
in  the  kingdom  of  the  saints.  The  messianic 
hope  roused  the  Jews  against  the  Roman 
domination,  and  the  results  were  other  than  in 
Maccabsean  days.  The  inward  quality  of  this 
hope,  a  faith  solely  religious  and  moral,  an 
aspiration  for  goodness  through  truth  and 
justice,  were  mingled  with  hopes  of  a  brilliant 
fortune  in  this  world,  of  Israel's  material  vic- 
tory over  the  Gentiles,  of  the  vengeance  of  the 
national  God  on  those  who  had  oppressed  his 
people.  The  Gospel  of  Jesus  made  the  spiritual 
element  prevail  over  the  material ;  but  it  was 
only  the  crucified  Messiah  who  caused  the 
notion  of  an  earthly,  national,  and  political 
triumph  to  disappear  among  his  followers. 
Christianity  issued,  so  to  speak,  from  the 
ambiguity  to  which  Jesus  owed  his  death. 
And  one  may  assert,  too,  that  messianism 
killed  the  people  which  aimed  at  its  literal 
fulfilment. 


Messianism  261 

§   3 

Judaism,  however,  was  very  widely  dissemi- 
nated through  the  pagan  world  long  before  the 
appearance  of  Christianity  :  it  had  carried  on  an 
active  propaganda,  and  not  unsuccessfully ;  but 
it  remained  the  religion  of  the  Jews  while 
Christianity,  which  was  by  its  origin  a  Jewish 
sect,  became  an  universal  religion  through 
breaking  with  Judaism. 

It  is  certain  that  the  community  in  Babylon 
was,  after  the  captivity,  a  very  zealous  promoter 
of  Judaism ;  it  was  even,  along  with  Jerusalem, 
its  head-quarters,  and  it  can  hardly  be  con- 
sidered a  foreign  settlement.  Otherwise,  the 
Jewish  propaganda  did  not  really  begin  until 
the  time  of  the  Greek  domination.  The  Egyp- 
tian colony  only  became  really  important  under 
the  Ptolemies.  It  was  the  Maccabsean  move- 
ment which  gave  a  new  impulse  to  Judaism. 
This,  having  won  for  a  time  its  political  inde- 
pendence in  Palestine,  extended  its  influence  by 
war.  The  Jews,  moreover,  spread  themselves 
everywhere,  as  the  writers  of  classical  antiquity 
bear  witness.  They  point  out,  too,  their  credit 
and  influence,  and  the  activity  of  their  prosely- 
tizing. This  diffusion  of  the  Jews,  and  their 
influence  throughout  the  pagan  world,  are 
attested  indirectly  but  most  significantly  by  the 


262     The  Religion  of  Israel 

story  of  the  apostle  Paul.  It  may  be  said  that 
wherever  that  missionary  of  the  Gospel  carried 
the  faith  of  Christ  he  found  organized  syna- 
gogues, which  had  not  only  their  Jewish  follow- 
ing, but  also  other  adherents,  recruited  from 
paganism,  and  composed  especially  of  those 
"  who  feared  God " ;  that  is  of  persons  who, 
without  entering  the  Jewish  community  through 
circumcision,  accepted  monotheism,  attended  the 
services  of  the  synagogue,  and  observed  certain 
rules  of  the  Law.  It  was  in  this  half-Jewish 
world  that  the  Christian  preaching  won  its 
earliest  recruits. 

The  older  Judaism  had  favoured  to  some 
extent  a  propaganda  among  the  Gentiles.  We 
have  seen  what  were  the  hopes  of  the  Second 
Isaiah.  The  same  notions  are  also  found  in 
the  closing  chapters  of  the  book  (Ivi.-lxvi.), 
which  are  from  a  later  writer,  and  in  certain 
psalms.  The  prophet,  who  is  known  by  the 
name  of  Malachi,  in  his  criticism  of  contem- 
porary Judaism,  goes  so  far  as  to  set  pagans 
on  the  same  footing  as  Jewish  believers,  and 
to  say  that  the  Gentiles  pay  God  a  homage 
that  is  equally  acceptable  to  him,  if  not  even 
more  so,  than  the  sacrifices  of  the  temple.  The 
Book  of  Jonah  has  something  of  the  same  kind. 
The  Wisdom  literature  had  at  first  a  tendency 
to  conceive  of  religion  as  a  moral  belief,  more 


Messianism  263 

or  less  disengaged  from  the  Law.  The  perse- 
cution of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  stirred  up  a 
revival  of  the  Jewish  spirit;  and,  in  Palestine 
at  least,  there  was  a  strong  reaction  against 
the  spread  of  pagan  thought  and  manners; 
but  proselytism  of  the  Gentiles  did  not  cease 
to  be  carried  on.  In  the  method  of  treating 
them,  two  tendencies  were  soon  developed 
among  the  doctors  of  the  Law :  one,  more 
liberal,  facilitating  intercourse  with  non-Jews, 
and  helpful  to  proselytizing;  this  was  the  way 
of  Hillel  and  his  school:  the  other  was  narrower, 
and  scrupulous  in  all  intercourse  with  pagans, 
and  really  opposed  to  any  propaganda;  this 
was  represented  by  Shammai  and  his  disciples. 
It  was  the  latter  method  which  prevailed  finally 
at  the  time  of  the  revolt  against  Rome.  The 
Books  of  Esther  and  Judith  show  that  mistrust 
of  the  heathen  could  easily  pass  into  hatred. 

Judaism  had,  to  favour  it,  the  fascination 
that  all  the  eastern  religions  then  exercised  over 
the  Roman  world,  which  could  no  longer  satisfy 
its  religious  aspirations  by  its  traditional  wor- 
ships :  and  it  had  an  advantage  over  the 
other  eastern  religions  in  its  loftier  teaching, 
its  genuine  morality,  its  tougher  and  more 
extended  organization.  All  the  synagogues  of 
the  dispersion,  not  only  within  the  empire  but 
beyond   it,  used   the  same  sacred  books  ;    they 


264     The   Religion  of  Israel 

all,  even  those  which  were  most  accessible  to 
pagans,  were  zealous  for  the  Law  ;  they  were 
all  in  touch  with  Jerusalem  by  their  regular 
contributions  and  pilgrimages.  And  a  strong 
feeling  of  brotherhood,  instead  of  hierarchical 
fetters,  united  all  these  scattered  communities 
into  a  religious  society  filled  with  vitality  and 
strength. 

But  Judaism  had  against  it  certain  practices, 
several  of  which  were  annoying  and  eccentric : 
circumcision  especially  was  a  practice  which 
the  heathen  considered  ridiculous.  The  Law  had 
moulded  Judaism  in  such  a  way  that  without 
being  either  a  nation  or  a  church,  strictly 
speaking,  it  was  a  kind  of  national  church 
into  which  people  could  not  be  admitted 
without  becoming  Jewish  :  to  belong  to  it  was, 
so  to  speak,  for  a  man  to  proclaim  himself 
in  his  own  country  a  member  of  an  alien 
society.  It  was  not  thus  with  the  other  and 
less  exclusive  oriental  worships,  which  might 
be  adopted  without  breaking  from  paganism. 
That  rupture,  which  Judaism  enforced  sharply 
by  its  external  modes  of  living,  was  based  also 
upon  the  demands  of  monotheism.  And  mono- 
theism thus  interpreted  was  precisely  what 
the  heathen  understood  least.  What  the  most 
enlightened  pagans  said  about  the  God  of  the 
Jews,  and  about  their  offensive  disdain  for  all 


Messianism  265 

other  Gods,  shows  they  were  not  yet  ripe  for 
comprehending  an  absolute  monotheism.  In 
fact,  it  was  partly  through  tempering  mono- 
theism by  the  gnosis  of  trinitarian  doctrines, 
and  partly  through  identifying  Jesus  with  the 
deity,  that  Christianity  was  enabled  to  lead 
the  pagan  world  to  accept  the  doctrine  of  a 
sole  God. 

It  would  seem,  besides,  that  hostility  against 
the  Jews  grew  in  proportion  to  their  diffusion, 
their  influence,  and  the  success  of  their  propa- 
ganda. A  kind  of  anti-semitism  existed  in 
Grseco-Roman  antiquity,  caused  by  contempt 
for  a  sect  which  in  spite  of  everything  was 
exclusive,  and  was  suspected  for  that  reason, 
which  was  exacting  and  peculiar  in  its  customs. 
And  much  dislike  was  roused  by  the  pride 
of  the  Jews,  which  was  haughty  not  only  to 
the  religions  but  to  the  civilization  of  paganism. 

And  the  Jews,  there  is  no  doubt,  imagined 
themselves  the  depositaries  of  a  higher  wisdom, 
which  came  to  them  from  God,  by  a  special 
privilege.  The  author  of  Ecclesiasticus  shows 
Wisdom  seeking  for  a  settled  habitation;  and, 
by  the  Creator's  order,  she  set  up  her  tent  in 
Jacob,  and  her  dwelling-place  on  Zion.*  The 
human  race  thus  found  itself  in  a  position  of 
signal  inferiority  when  confronted  with  the 
■^  Ecclus.  xxiv.  7-11. 


266     The   Religion  of  Israel 

Jews :  God  had  abandoned  the  Gentiles  to 
ignorance  and  error,  while  it  pleased  him  to 
instruct  Israel.  Placed  before  the  pagan  civili- 
zation, the  Jews  seemed  inclined  for  a  time 
to  appropriate  it,  but  only  by  affecting  to 
rediscover  in  it  their  own  property.  Never  was 
there  seen  such  a  torrent  of  apocryphal  and 
spurious  literature  as  was  produced  by  the 
Hellenistic  Judaism  :  as  much  to  heighten  its 
importance  with  the  pagans,  to  silence  their 
objections,  to  humiliate  them  in  that  which 
they  considered  their  most  valuable  possession, 
namely  science  and  philosophy,  as  to  extend 
among  them  a  propaganda  of  Israelitish 
monotheism.  Marvellous  legends  concerning 
the  origins  of  the  Greek  translation  of  the 
scrij)tures,  the  Septuagint,  forged  quotations 
from  classical  authors,  deceptive  fables  about 
the  heroes  in  the  Bible,  fictions  of  every  kind 
for  the  greater  glory  of  Israel  and  its  religion  : 
nothing  was  overlooked  which  could  serve 
to  exalt  the  Jews  above  the  pagans.  All  the 
ancient  civilizations  had  been  schooled  by  Israel 
and  its  ancestors  :  all  the  philosophers  of  Greece 
and  Rome  owed  to  the  Law  whatever  they 
knew  about  truth.  The  Jews  really  believed 
that  they  were  the  light  of  the  world ;  but 
they  understood  the  question  rather  differently 
from  the  old  prophets.       If,  then,  the  choicest 


Messianism  267 

spirits  of  antiquity  were  unable  to  appreciate 
the  religious  value  of  Judaism,  it  was  partly, 
perhaps,  because  the  way  in  which  it  was 
presented  was  not  likely  to  give  them  a  high 
notion  of  it.  The  Jewish  literature  inspired 
them  with  little  esteem  or  trust ;  and  so  they 
did  not  try  to  solve  the  riddle  which  the  Jewish 
religion  presented  to  them  :  the  striking  con- 
tradiction between  its  national  worship,  and 
its  universal  God.  The  petty  aspects  of  the 
system  were  far  more  visible. 

The  reign  of  Herod  was  the  most  prosperous 

time  of  Judaism  under  the  Roman  domination. 

Herod,  understanding  the  people  whom  he  had 

to   govern,   ordered    his    administration    so    as 

never   to   wound   their   religious  prejudices ;    a 

policy  of  which  the  imperial  government  showed 

itself  incapable  when  it  ruled  directly.     By  his 

political  shrewdness  he  was  able  to  acquire  a 

sort   of   protectorate   over    all    the    Jews    who 

were    scattered    through    the    Roman    world ; 

this   both   strengthened   their    position    in    the 

empire,    and    was    most    favourable    to    their 

propaganda.     He  guaranteed  the  safety  of  the 

Jews  abroad  while  he  repressed  their  fanaticism 

at  home.      After  him,    that    fanaticism    broke 

loose.  The  first  act  of  the  Roman  authority,  when 

Archelaus  the  tetrarch  of  Judaea  was  deposed, 

was     a     census     for     levying     taxes,      which 


268     The  Religion  of  Israel 

immediately  stirred  up  a  rebellion :  it  was 
intolerable  to  the  people  of  God  to  feel  them- 
selves subjected  so  completely  to  a  foreign  rule. 
This  was  a  prelude  to  the  troubles  which 
under  Nero  and  Hadrian,  brought  about  the 
ruin  of  Jerusalem,  and  separated  Judaism  from 
the  land  in  which  it  had  waited  so  long  and 
vainly  for  the  kingdom  of  Yahweh.  As  far 
as  religious  history  is  concerned,  it  is  sufficient 
to  add  that  the  enmity  against  Rome  was 
always  growing,  and  that  hatred  of  the  pagans 
destroyed  proselytism.  After  the  war  which 
ended  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus, 
monotheistic  propaganda  became  the  work  of 
Christianity,  which  was  now  separated  from 
Judaism  and  rejected  by  it.  Judaism  thence- 
forward was  barred  against  all  external 
influence :  it  regarded  all  profane  culture  with 
horror,  and  absorbed  itself  in  a  microscopic 
study  and  a  scrupulous  observance  of  its  Law. 

§  4 
And,  what  is  more  extraordinary,  messianism 
also  fell,  as  though  exhausted  or  played  out, 
in  the  last  convulsions  of  Jewish  nationalism, 
under  Hadrian.  The  subject  of  the  Messiah 
was  no  more  than  a  thesis  for  rabbinical 
discussions,  like  any  other  point  of  Biblical 
doctrine ;    but   the   messianic   fever,  which  had 


Messianism  269 

had  its  final  crisis  in  the  rising  of  Barcochba, 
and  its  last  visions  in  the  apocalypses  of  the 
pseudo  Ezra  and  Baruch,  was  for  ever  quieted. 
The  Messiah  will  come,  no  doubt,  but  no  one 
expects  him.  The  Law  alone  reigns  over  the 
souls  broken  by  their  dreadful  experiences,  and 
dominates  a  religious  society  ever  more  strictly 
bound,  which  finds  peace  in  its  isolation.  Events 
had  deprived  their  hopes  of  all  earthly  foun- 
dations, by  destroying  the  temple  and  giving 
over  Jerusalem  to  the  Gentiles.  Until  it  may 
please  God  to  bring  forth  his  kingdom,  which  no 
one  dreams  now  of  advancing  by  any  human 
agency,  Judaism  shall  be  a  national  church, 
scattered  through  the  world ;  while  Chris- 
tianity, which  issued  from  it,  becomes  an 
universal   church. 

About  the  time  of  the  Christian  era, 
messianism,  as  it  had  been  moulded  by  the 
persecution  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  and  the 
Maccabsean  rising,  by  the  Roman  conquest  and 
the  troubles  which  ensued  on  the  death  of 
Herod,  could  number  among  the  Jews, 
especially  in  Palestine,  almost  as  many 
adherents  as  there  were  practical  believers ; 
but  all  these  believers  had  not  the  same  ideals, 
and  all  the  Palestinian  Jews  had  not  the  same 
reality   of  faith. 

We  know  that,    in    the  actual  times    when 


270     The  Religion  of  Israel 

Jesus  of  Nazareth  appeared,  various  tendencies 
prevailed  among  the  Jews,  and  a  sort  of 
compromise  was  reached  which  kept  the  people 
more  or  less  in  a  complete  and  voluntary- 
submission  to  the  Romans.  The  party  which 
we  may  describe  as  messianic,  and  which  had 
reconquered  the  national  independence  by  arms 
in  the  days  of  the  Maccabees,  lived  on  chiefly 
among  those  who  were  called  Pharisees^  that 
is  the  devout  and  zealous,  the  "  separated"  from 
the  profane  world ;  who  clung  to  a  rigorous 
observance  of  the  Law,  and  who  saw  in  that 
a  pledge  of  deliverance  for  Israel.  Full  of 
hatred  and  contempt  for  paganism,  they  bore 
the  yoke  of  the  foreigner  impatiently,  while 
waiting  for  God  to  liberate  his  people.  Many 
of  them,  especially  among  the  doctors  of  the 
Law,  who  were  the  most  enlightened  part  of 
the  Pharisean  sect,  drew  sufficient  inward  joy 
from  the  study  and  practice  of  the  command- 
ments, and  they  had  no  wish  at  all  to 
precipitate  God's  hour,  nor  to  encourage  any 
movements  of  revolt,  which  the  most  ordinary 
prudence  would  have  disapproved.  The  popu- 
lace was  urged  on  without  thinking,  by  the 
ardour  of  its  faith,  and  by  an  immoderate  desire 
for  a  victory  by  God,  which  would  have  won 
the  national  independence  frora  the  conquered 
Gentiles.     The  notion  of  a  resurrection  of  the 


Messianism  271 

just  having  penetrated  since  Daniel  into  the 
popular  beliefs,  they  flattered  themselves  that 
God  would  soon  crush  the  foreign  oppressor, 
send  his  Messiah,  and  establish  again  the  throne 
of  David  ;  and  that  the  righteous  dead  would 
rise  and  take  their  place  among  the  elect  in  the 
new   kingdom. 

Nevertheless  the  Pharisees,  whether  moder- 
ates or  zealots,  were  not  officially  the  religious 
heads  of  the  people.  The  Sadducean  priests, 
the  real  or  imaginary  descendants  of  Zadok, 
did  not  share  their  inflated  and  risky  hopes. 
In  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  several 
members  of  the  higher  priesthood  were 
favourable  to  Hellenism ;  and,  in  the  times 
which  followed,  the  priests  of  Jerusalem,  who 
were  rich  and  well  endowed,  seemed  always 
more  anxious  to  maintain  their  existing 
security  than  to  toil  for  the  coming  reign 
of  the  saints.  The  present,  in  fact,  was  too 
profitable  for  them  not  to  mistn  st  a  future 
brought  in  by  revolution.  Under  the  various 
powers  which  had  followed  one  another,  the 
position  of  the  priests  had  always  been  better 
than  that  of  the  people.  The  state  of  things 
by  which  they  profited,  and  about  which 
they  had  little  to  complain,  was  good  for 
them  to  preserve.  If  the  national  independ- 
ence could    have  been  gained  without  running 


272     The  Religion  of  Israel 

too  many  risks,  they  would  have  preferred 
independence  to  subjection ;  when  fanaticism 
broke  bounds,  at  the  end  of  Nero's  reign, 
they  followed  the  movement  in  spite  of  them- 
selves, trying  always  to  restrain  it,  after 
having  done  their  utmost  to  hinder  it.  As 
the  Law  was  Israel's  single  rule  of  life,  and 
was  also  the  source  of  their  own  revenues, 
they  made  a  profession  of  respecting  the 
Law,  and  of  not  looking  beyond  it  for  truths 
and  hopes :  they  thus  came  to  oppose  the 
theory  of  a  resurrection,  which  was  the 
corner-stone  of  current  messianism;  and,  with 
the  resurrection,  the  waiting  for  a  kingdom 
of  God.  Politicians  invested  with  a  sacred 
character,  the  Sadducees  had  ceased  to  be 
a  religious  influence.  Their  only  power 
came  from  their  social  position ;  and  they 
strove,  for  very  human  motives,  to  cool  the 
religious  and  national  sentiment  which  was 
inflamed  by  messianic  expectations.  They 
were  implacable  enemies  to  the  personification 
of  these  hopes,  when  it  presented  itself  before 
them,  simple  and  unarmed,  in  the  features 
of  Jesus. 

Such  were  the  two  great  parties  before 
whom  Christ  found  himself,  and  they  both 
rejected  him.  They  were  not  two  separate 
sects  within   Judaism :    rather,   they  were  two 


Messianism  273 

tempers  which  divided  it,  without  causing 
an  external  schism  ;  two  groups,  each  unable 
to  establish  itself  without  the  other.  Two 
bodies  which,  though  mutually  hostile,  clung 
to  a  common  worship,  for  reasons  in  which 
religion  was  concerned  ;  and  which  were  even 
capable  of  joint  action  for  a  common  purpose. 
In  this  more  or  less  heterogeneous  amalgam, 
the  Pharisees  represented  the  living  Judaism, 
with  its  traditional  faith,  and  also  its  narrow 
spirit ;  a  legacy  of  the  nationalism,  of  the 
ritualism,  and  of  all  that  past  which  they 
wished  to  impose  on  the  future.  The  Sadducees 
represented  the  political  power  of  the  hier- 
archy. 

The  Essenes,  whom  it  would  be  erroneous 
to  put  on  a  level  with  Pharisees  and  Sadducees, 
were  organized  as  a  sect :  it  was  a  kind  of 
ascetic  Judaism,  set  up  outside  the  Law,  and 
under  influences  which  are  little  known  to 
us.  They  lived  in  community,  had  no  personal 
property,  and  their  ways  were  comparable  to 
those  of  a  religious  order.  They  had  no 
part  in  the  worship  of  the  temple  ;  but  they 
had  their  own  rites,  multifarious  baths  and 
ablutions,  which  had  a  sacramental  character. 
Their  common  meal  was  like  another  sacra- 
ment, by  its  meaning  and  its  solemnity:  they 
honoured   the   Pentateuch,   but   they   also    had 

19 


274     The  Religion  of  Israel 

secret  books.  They  kept  the  sabbath. 
Marriage  was  repudiated  by  them  ;  but 
Josephus  says  that  some  of  them,  allowed 
it  under  certain  conditions.  They  condemned 
oaths,  except  that  oath  which  they  took 
upon  entering  the  order,  after  a  preparatory 
noviciate.  The  existence  of  such  a  sect, 
whose  origin  was  prior  to  the  close  of  the  second 
century  before  Christ,  shows  at  least  that 
strange  developments  could  be  produced  in 
Judaism,  notwithstanding  the  tyranny  of 
tradition.  The  Essenes  do  not  seem  to  have 
been  condemned,  but  rather  esteemed,  by 
orthodox  Judaism.  On  the  other  hand,  they 
do  not  seem  to  have  had  any  profound  effect 
upon  it :  nor  does  Christianity  seem,  at  any 
rate  in  the  beginning,  to  have  had  any  con- 
nexion  with   the   Essenes. 

Thus  the  work  of  Moses  and  the  prophets 
had  reached  the  stage  of  maturity,  if  it  had  not 
passed  it :  all  progress  became  impossible  under 
the  yoke  of  the  Law  ;  and  religion  tended  to 
lose  itself,  on  one  hand  in  extravagance,  on  the 
other  in  worldliness.  To  continue  growing,  it 
had  to  burst  its  traditional  covering,  as  the 
germ  that  wishes  to  expand  must  split  the  seed 
which  contains  it.  It  was  through  Christianity 
that  the  religion  of  Israel  conquered  the  Roman 
world.       But,    independently    of    that    success, 


Messianism  275 

which  was  not  altogether  its  own,  its  particular 
history  is  extraordinary  enough  ;  and  the  moral 
renovation  of  the  ancients'  Jahvism  by  the 
prophets  is  one  of  the  most  fruitful  incidents 
for  the  historian  of  religions.  Perhaps  there 
is  not  another  which  shows  more  clearly  that 
the  phenomenon  of  religion  cannot  be  reduced 
to  another  form  of  human  activity,  nor  explained 
solely  by  causes  pertaining  to  the  social  order  ; 
but  that  it  expresses,  in  its  purest  manifesta- 
tions, an  endeavour  to  attain,  beyond  what  is 
real  and  tangible,  an  ideal  or  a  transcendent 
reality,  conceived  as  the  principle  and  goal 
of  a  moral  life. 

It  is  almost  useless  to  ask  whether  Judaism 
by  itself  could  have  accomplished  the  work  of 
Christianity.  What  Judaism  could  do  of  itself, 
it  did.  A  religious  society  so  strongly  consti- 
tuted was  not  really  free  to  transform  itself 
into  another  society,  with  the  same  expression 
of  belief  and  the  same  moral  principles,  but 
without  the  same  obsolete  practices  and  the 
same  exclusive  spirit.  We  cannot  imagine 
the  authorities  of  Judaism,  its  priests  and 
doctors,  deciding  to  sacrifice  the  letter  of  the 
Law,  to  suppress  the  traditional  observances, 
to  transform  themselves  into  an  universal 
church,  which  would  accept  pagans  without 
branding    them    by    the    Jewish    circumcision. 


276     The  Religion  of  Israel 

Such  a  metamorphosis  would  have  been  a 
suicide  of  the  old  religion.  A  society  cannot 
either  wish  or  effect  a  suicide  of  that  kind,  even 
if  it  be  the  indispensable  and  certain  condition 
of  a  renewed  life.  The  individuals  could  not 
all  see,  either  at  the  same  time  or  clearly 
enough,  the  need  for  such  a  transformation; 
the  mass  of  believers  would  never  understand 
the  necessity  ;  those  who  led  them  would 
neither  dare  nor  wish  to  discuss  it.  Nothing 
could  make  a  form  of  religion,  which  still 
satisfied  the  majority  of  its  adherents,  although 
running  a  proximate  risk  of  losing  them, 
suddenly  become  something  different  from 
what  it  actually  was. 

Christianity  owed  its  success  to  its  separation 
from  Judaism,  which  treated  it  as  a  heresy. 
If,  by  an  impossibility,  all  the  Jews  had  accepted 
Jesus  for  their  Messiah  when  he  went  up  to 
preach  in  Jerusalem,  the  war  of  extermination 
which  ended  in  the  catastrophe  of  a.d.  70  would 
have  broken  out  thirty  years  earlier ;  and  there 
would  have  been  no  Christianity.  Jesus  could  not 
have  been  then  accepted ;  because  the  circum- 
stances and  conditions  of  his  appearance  did  not 
endorse  his  message,  which  was  the  announce- 
ment of  God's  kingdom :  he  did  not  wish  to 
lead  the  people  into  a  revolt  against  Rome ;  and 
he  was  not  able  to  make  the  priests  and  scribes 


Messianism  277 

recognise  a  mission  which  was  guaranteed  by 
nothing,  except  the  assertion  of  him  who 
declared  himself  invested  with  it.  But,  when 
that  mission  had  become  through  his  death  an 
object  of  belief  to  his  firm  disciples,  and  the 
object  of  a  faith  repudiated  by  Judaism,  the 
notion  of  a  monotheism  that  was  not  Jewish 
was  able  to  emerge  and  consolidate.  Many 
pagans  who  feared  God,  but  who  could  not 
make  themselves  complete  Jews,  came  to  the 
first  preachers  of  a  risen  Jesus.  An  ardent 
genius  was  found  to  disclose  the  future  way, 
when  the  question  was  raised  whether  the  legal 
observances  were  necessary  for  the  salvation  of 
the  converted.  Without  their  perceiving  it, 
Judaism  had  already  been  left.  Paul  under- 
stood that  the  new  believers  need  not  be  made 
to  enter  it ;  and,  without  wishing  it  himself,  he 
effected  the  rupture.  Judaism  remained  with 
its  Law,  which  preserved  it  while  keeping  it 
from  spreading  ;  and  Christianity,  released  from 
the  Law,  went  forward  towards  those  destinies 
which  befitted  a  young  religion  able  to  adapt 
itself  to  the  mentality  and  the  religious 
temperament  of  those  whom  it  wished  to  gain. 


INDEX 


INDEX  OF  PEESONS 


Aaron,  33,  126,  208 

Abiathar,  122 

Abimelech,  113 

Abinadab,  122,  123,  125 

Abraham,  7,  11,  25,  26,  30,  34-6,  68, 

79, 103,  211 
Achaetis,  27 
Acbiyami,  37 
Adam,  211 
Adonis,  91 
iEolos,  27 

Ahab,  79,  132, 135,  137-9 
Ahaz,  160,  163-4,  167 
Ahio,  123 
Abriman,  245 
Akiba,  258 

Alexander  Jannseiia,  257 
Ammon,  the  God,  112 
Amon,  169,  182 
Amos,  12, 23-4,  75, 119, 130, 132,  136, 

146, 149,  155 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,   16,  18,  231, 

240,  248,  252,  259,  262,  269,  271 
Archelaus,  267 
Ashera,  115 

Ashur,  the  God,  112,  239 
Assurbannipal,  164 
Astarte,  115 
Athaliah,  140 


B 


Baal,  102,  131 

Baals,  110, 112, 115-19 


Baal-Berith,  91 

Baal  of  Judah,  122 

Baal-Melcarth,  137 

Balaam,  92, 100, 131,  133 

Barak,  131 

Barcochba,  258,  269 

Baruch,  13 

Barach,  Apocalypse  of,  269 

Beast,  the,  243 

Bossuet,  249 


Caleb,  31 
Canaan,  91 
Canaanites,  76 
Chemosh,  82,  102 
Christ,  262,  272 
Cousin,  Victor,  47 
Cyras,  12,  16,  202,  209,  248 


D 

Dagon,  90 
Darius,  14 
David,  21,  28,  31-2,  66,  88,  90,  95, 

109,  118,  121-2,  128,  181,  271 
Deborah,  37, 131,  241 
Doros,  27 

E 
El-Berith,  91,  117, 175 
Eleazar,  208 
Eli,  121 
Eliashib,  209 


iS79 


28o 


Index  of  Persons 


Elijah,  23, 130-1,  133,  137-8,  253-4, 

256 
Elisha,  130, 133-4,  138-9 
El-Sbaddai,  117 
Enoch,  253 
Esarhaddon,  164 
Esau,  92 
Ezekiel,  152,  165,  194,  196-8,  240, 

242,  246 
Ezra,  11,  12,  14,  16,  24,  203,  206, 

215-17,  246 
Ezra,  Apocalj^se  of,  269 

G 

Gabriel,  22-3,  24-9 
Genius  of  Eome,  the,  239 
Gideon,  76 
Gog,  240,  246 

H 

Habakkuk,  13 
Hadrian,  258,  268 
Haggai,  14,  219 
Hammurabi,  12,  124 
Hellen,  27 

Herod,  33,  209,  220,  224,  266,  269 
Hezekiah,  12,  62,  160-2, 167, 170 
Hiel,  79 

Hilkiah,  22, 170-2 
Hillel,  220,  262 

Hosea,  23-4,  119,  136,  146,  149, 151, 
157-8, 167,  181,  196,  245 


I  AM,  98 

Ion,  27 

Isaac,  26,  34,  78,  92, 103,  157 

Isaiah,  13,  24,  152, 158-68,  188,  196, 

229,  240,  242,  245 
"  Isaiah,"  the  Second,  198-203,  246, 

248,  250 
"Isaiah,"  the  author  of  Ivi.-lxvi., 

262 
Israel  (Jacob),  25,  26,  68 


Israel,  the  people,  passim 
Ithamar,  208 


Jacob,  25,  26,  27,  29,  34,  92,  100 

Jacobel,  38 

Jahvism,  passim 

Jason  of  Cyrene,  17 

Jehoiakin,  153,  185 

Jehu,  99,  101-2,  134,  138-9 

Jephtha,  78-9,  102,  167 

Jeremiah,  13, 16,  24,  152-3,  165,  183, 

185-9,  196-7,  245 
Jeroboam,  135-6 

„  II.,  155 

Jesus,  33,  258,  260,  265,  270, 272, 276, 

277 
J  evfs,  passim 
Joash, 139 
Job,  229,  231 
Joel,  14 

Jonadab,  101, 138 
Jonathan,  128 
Joram,  138 

Joseph,  26,  29,  30,  91, 105, 119 
Josephel,  38 
Josephus,  258,  274 
Joshua,  11,  108, 174 

„      ,  the  Priest,  209 
Josiah,  10, 13, 22-3, 119, 170-5, 180-3, 

229 
Judah,  105, 109,  passion 
Judaism,  passim 
Judas,  the  Galilean,  258 
Judges,  the,  23,  32,  110 
Jupiter,  26 

K 

Koheleth,  223,  234 


Law,  passim 
Leah,  105 
Levi,  105 


Index  of  Persons 


281 


M 
Maccabseus,  Simon,  16 
Malachi,  128,  262 
Manasseh,  163-4, 169, 171, 182, 198 
Marduk,  200,  239 
Mattatbias,  209 
Menabem,  158 
Mesba,  81-2 

Micbael,  222-3,  249,  254,  256 
Micab,  146, 161-2, 167 
Micbal,  181 
Minepbtab,  38 
Molocb,  164,  167,  251 
Moses,  7,  11,  12,  22-4,  28-34,  48,  60, 

62,  66-8,  88,  90-1,  95-100,  105-9, 

211,  253,  274 
Moses,  tbe  blessings  of,  125-7 

N 
Naboth,  137 
Nabu,  198 
Nabum,  13 

Nebucbadnezzar,  16,  183,  185,  239- 
Nebemiab,  16,24,  203,  206,  209,  215- 

19,  249 
Nero,  268,  272 
Noadiab,  219 
Noab,  77,  92,  211 


O 


Obadiab,  14 
Obededom,  123 


Paul,  75,  201,  257,  262,  277 

Patriarcbs,  tbe,  23,  56 

Pekab, 159 

Pompey,  224 

Propbets,  tbe,  12,  and  passim 

Ptolemies,  tbe,  261 

Q 

Queen  of  Heaven,  tbe,  163 
Quiriuius,  258 


B 

Eacbael,  105 
Eameses,  112 
Eecbab,  102,  242-3 
Eenan,  130,  214 
Rezin,  159 

S 

Samson,  132 

Samuel,  23,  129-34,  228 

Sanballat,  219 

Sarab,  25 

Sargon, 33, 158, 164 

Satan,  224,  243-5 

Saul,  28,  104,  124,  128,  133-4,  176, 

228 
Scribes,  tbe,  12 
Sennacberib,  159-61,  164,  240 
Sbammai,  220,  262 
Sbamasb,  12,  163 
Sbapban,  171 
Shear- Jashiih,  159-60 
Simeon,  105 
Simon,  Jules,  49 
Sisera,  113, 131,  241 
Solomon,  15,  17,  21,  135, 171 

T 
Tamar,  119 
Tiamut,  208,  243 
Tiglatb-Pileser,  158,  160, 164 
Titus,  17,  258,  268 
Tobiab,  219 
Toutmosis  III.,  38 


U 


Uzzab,  123 


Xantbos,  27 


Tabweh,  passim,    and   under   the 

following  special  headings  : — 
Yahweb,  a  Bull  God,  63,  136 
,  a  Snake  God,  63, 100 


282 


Index  of  Places 


Yahweh-Shalom,  76, 118 
Yahweh,  loves  blood,  79-80 
,,       ,  the  Name  of,  89 
„       ,  the  Angel  of,  89,  221 
„       ,  captured  by  Philistines,  90 
„       ,  meaning  of  the  name,  96- 

100 
„       ,  equivalent  to  "  It  is  " ;  not 

to  I  AM 
„       ,  a  spirit  of  the  night,  100 
„       ,  his  early  character,  101 
„       ,  a  Mountain  God,  101 
„       ,  a  Fire  God,  101 
„       ,  a  Storm  God,  101 
,,       ,  non-moral,  103 
,,       ,  irritable  and  frantic,  103, 

156 
,,       ,  tricky  and  thievish,  103 
„       ,  kills  Egyptian  First-born, 

104 
„       ,  his  Passing  Through,  105 
„       ,  the  God  of  Levi,  106 
„       the    God    of   Kadesh    and 

Sinai,  106 
„       ,  The  Wars  of,  106, 107, 112 
,.       ,  a  War  God,  111,  240,  241 
,,       ,  mighty  in  battle,  112 
Yahweh- Sab aotk,  111,  118, 123,  241 
Yahiveh-Nissi,  107,  118 
Yahweh,    supplants    Canaanite 
Baals,  117-18 
„       ,  becomes  an  inhabitant  of 

Canaan, 119 
,,       ,  becomes  a  Baal,  119 


Yahweh,  becomes  a  Malek,  119,  168 
,,       ,  jealous,  exclusive,  121 
„       ,  takes  possession  of  Zion, 

121 
,,       ,  demands  First-born  chil- 
dren, 149 
,,       ,  the  Day  of,  155 
„       ,  his  ferocity  and  rage,  156-7 
„       ,  Moloch,  164, 167 
„       ,  orders  holocausts  of  First- 
born, 165 
Yahweh-Melek,  168-9 
Yahweh,  his  Law  "  found,"  170 
jj  ,,        a  theocracy,  175 

,,       ,  becomes  homeless,  193 
„       ,  spiritualized  and  enlarged, 

210 
,,       ,  his  name  not  uttered,  221 
„       ,  eludes  the  problem  of  Job, 

231 
„       ,  loves  fat  victims,  240 
,,       ,  vanquishes  Chaos,  241 
,,       ,  orders  Nature,  242 
„       ,  the  Servant  of,  247 
„       ,  the  great  and  terrible  Day 
of,  254 


Zadok,  126, 177,  271 
Zechariah,  14,  219,  247 
Zedekiah,  185 
ZeiDhaniah,  13 
Zerubbabel,  203,  209 
Zipporah,  66 


INDEX  OF  PLACES 


Amalek,  106, 108,  125-6 
Ammon,  35 
Ammonites,  113 
Amorites,  174 


Arabia,  32-3,  36,  97 
Arabian  Desert,  29 
Arabian  tribes,  31,  69 
Ashdod,  90 
Assyria,  21, 144, 16 


Index  of  Places 


283 


B 

Baal-Peor,  157 

Babylon,  11, 12,  21,  36,  43,  83, 110, 

152,  261 
Bethsheba,  23,  26,  117 
Bethel,  23,  26,  117,135, 148, 155,157, 

180 
Beth-Peor,  108 
Beth-Shemesh,  122 

0 

Canaan,  32,  35,  37,  74,  78-9,  113 
„     ,  conquest  of,  30,  37,  95, 106, 

108 
,,     ,  settlement   of,   34-5,  108, 
115 
Chaldsea,  85 
Chaldsean  Empire,  36 
Capitol,  the,  239 

D 

Damascus,  21, 137,  139, 160 
Dan,  107, 135,  149 

E 
Eden,  garden  of,  197,  210 
Edom,  241 

Egypt,  26,  29-31,  33-4,  36,  87, 91,  96, 
98-9,  105, 160, 183 
„    ,  sojourn  in,  28-9,  33,  68-9 
Egjrptians,  119 
El-Amarna,  37-8 
Elamitic  Giili,  32 
El-More,  79 
Ephraim,  21,  23, 155 
Endor,  228 

Eternal  City,  the,  239 
Euphrates,  36 


G 


Gehenna,  168,  251 
Gerizim,  218 
Gibeon,  112 
Gilgal,  135 


Goshen,  29, 105 
Greece,  21 


H 


Haran,  35 

Hebron,  23,  25-6,  31,  117 
Hinnom,  165,  168, 180 
Horeb,  11,  88 

I,J,K 

Idumsea,  35,  97 

Jericho,  71, 113-14,  128 

Jerusalem,  17,  23,  90, 109, 110,  118, 
121,  132,  139,  149,  152,  160-1,  164, 
193,  251,  258,  261,  264,  268-9 

Jordan,  30,  67,  108 

Judaea,  30 

Judah,  21,  30-2,  122, 135, 160,  237 

Kadesh,  32-4,  90,  96,  105,  107, 118, 
126-7 

Kirjath-Baal,  122 

Kirjath-Jearim,  122 

M 

Macpelah,  26 

Magog,  240,  246 

Massah,  107,  137 

Medes,  259 

Megiddo,  182 

Meribah-Kadesh,  32,  107, 127 

Mesopotamia,  35,  68 

Midian,  32,  97 

Midiauites,  113 

Mizraim,  31 

Moab,  35,  81,  170 

Moabites,  113 

Moreh,  175 

Musri,  31 

N,  0,  P,  R 
Nineveh,  13,  20,  35,  43 
Nile,  33 
Ophra,  76,  118 
Palestine,  11,  25,  35,  38 


284  Index  of  Subjects 


Paran,  32 
Persia,  21 
Philistines,  66,  90, 113, 121,  132, 156 

176,  228 
Phoenicia,  85,  137 
Phoenicians,  43 
Promised  Land,  12 
Rephidim,  107 

Eome,  21,  239,  263,  266,  268,  276 
Romans,  209,  239,  258-9,  267, 269-70 

S 
Samaria,  137 
Sarepta,  138 
Seir,  32,  241 

Shechem,  23,  26,  75, 91, 117, 125, 135, 
174-5,  218 


Sheol,  227,  233 

Shiloh,  91,  107,  111,  118,  122 

Sinai,  11, 12,  29-33,  89,  96,  105, 119, 

241 
Susa,  20 

T 

Taanak,  27 
Tekoa,  155 
Temple,  the,  22,  90,  119,  136,  149 

153,  160,  193,  269 
Town-of-the- Woods,  122, 125 
Tyre,  132,  138 

U,  Z 

Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  35 
Zion,  88,  121, 188, 198 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS 


"  Amos,"  12 

Animism,  44,  48,  63,  81,  &ndL  passim 
Angel,  of  the  Greeks,  222 
„     ,  of  Persia,  222 
„     ,  of  Yahweh,  221 
Anti-Semitism,  265 
"  Apocalypse,  of  Ezra,"  269 
"  Apocalypse,  of  Baruch,"  269 
"  Apocalypse,  of  John,"  243,  246 
Apocalyptic  literature,  14 
Apocalyptic    writing,   begins    with 

Ezekiel,  196 
Apocryphal   writing,   passim,  and 
265-7 

Arabs,  35,  43 

Aramaean  migration,  35-6 

Aramaeans,  156 

Archives,  6 

Ark,  65,  88-91, 100,  111,  121-23,  136 

Ass,  Balaam's,  100 

Ashera,  116 

Asmontean  dynasty,  224,  237 


Assyrian  monarchy,  20,  and^assm 
"  Assumption  of  Moses,"  251 

B 

Baal,  baals,  passim 
Babylonian  Captivity,  19 
„  language,  36 

"  Baruch,"  5, 17,  251 
Blessings  irrevocable,  91 
Blood,  passim,  and  see  Yahiveh 

,,     ,  abstinence  from,  11,  27 

,,     ,  offerings  of,  81 
Bondage,  the  house  of,  30 
Brazen  Serpent,  62,  100, 162 
Bull  God,  63 

C 

Cain,  tribe  of,  96 
Canaan,  religions  of,  115-21 
Canon  of  O.T.  settled,  4 
Casuistry,  dates  from  Ezra,  213 
Chabiri,  the,  37-8 
Chaldaean  mythology,  27,  35 


Index  of  Subjects  285 


Chaldseans,  13 

Cherein,  113-15,  128,  149 

Cherubim,  223 

Christ,  the  sacrifice  of,  83 

Christianity,  47,  260-1,  265,   268-9, 

274-7 
"  Chronicles,"  5,  21,  24,  207 
City,  the  Eternal,  239 

„  „  ,  story  of,  211 

Creation,  11 
Clan,  God  of,  59,  61 

,,    ,  religion  of,  59 
Communion,  75,  78-9,  83,  87,  and 

passim 
"Covenant,  Boob    of,"    23,  147-8, 

166,  172,  174,  178,  197 
Curses,  irrevocable,  91 

D 

Dances,  sacred,  81 

"  Daniel,"  4,  5,  14,  16,  18,  222,  240, 

242-3,  249-51,  257,  259,  271 
Day,  of  Yahweh,  155 
Dead,  worship  of,  passim 
Decalogue,  the  Jahvist,  147, 174 

,,        ,  the  new  in  "Ex."   and 

"Deut.,"178 
Deluge,  11 
"Deuteronomy,"  10-12,  21-24,   60, 

108, 119, 176,  178, 183,  197,  211 
"  Deuteronomy,"         origin        and 

"invention"  of,  170-1 
Deuteronomy,    promulgation    and 

acceptance,  173 
Deuteronomy,      a    law    of   priests 

drafted  by  prophets,  179-80 
Deuteronomy     effects    decline    of 

prophecy,  179 
Deuteronomy     founds      Judaism, 

184 
Dragon,  the,  243 
Duty,  53 

E 
"  Ecclesiastes,"  5, 15, 17,  233 


"  Ecclesiasticus,"  5,  17,  220,  232-3, 

254,  265 
Egyptian  influence,  29 
Ehie,  98 
El,  57-9 
Elim,  57-9 
Eloh,  57 

Elohim,  56-58,  79,  228 
Elohism,  56 

Elohistic  history,  6-9, 10-12,  23 
"  Enoch,"  18,  257-8 
Ephod,  90,  181 
Eschatology,  251 
Essenes,  273-4 
"Esther,"5,  16, 17,  20,  262 
"Exodus,"  10,  23,  69,  86-8 
Exodus,  the,  28-31,  33 
"  Ezekiel,"  4, 13,  24 
"Ezra,"  5 

F 
Fanaticism,  ferocity,  passim,  and 

see  Yahweh 
Fatherhood  of  God,  physical,  51 
Fasting,  214 

Feast  (chag)  =  dance,  81 
Feasts,  65,  86, 148 
Fetishism,  44,  46,  48-9,  51 
First-born,  offered  to  Yahweh,  149, 
164, 166-7 

,,       ,  demanded  by  Yahweh, 
166 

,,        ,  ordered    by  "  Book  of 
Covenant,"  166-7 
Flood,  Chaldean  story  of,  9,  27,  77 

G 

"  Genesis,"  242 
Gibeonites,  104 
God,  passim 
God,  of  the  bush,  60,  61 
God  the  Father,  in  germ,  51 
God,  the  sons  of,  222 
Gospel,  the,  201 

Greek  domination,  13-15,  18,  224, 
230,  261 


2  86  Index  of  Subjects 


H 

"  Habakkuk,"  13 
"  Haggai,"  14 
HagiograpJia,  the,  4,  5 
Hebrews,  the,  37,  68 
Hellenism,  224,  238,  271 
"Hexateuch,"  6,20,  67 
Hiero-Douloi,  117 
High  Px'iesthood,  originates,  208 
Homeric  Gods,  the,  112 
"Hosea,"  12 


Idols,  indispensable,  51 
Immortality,  227 
Isaac,  the  fear  of,  117 
Islam,  43 

"  Isaiah,"  4, 13,  22,  25 
„         xl.-lv.,  194 


Jacob,  the  blessings  of,  124,  126 
Jahvism,  passim 

Jahvistic  history,  the  6,  9-12,  23,  27 
Jehovah,  the  term  inaccurate,  96 
"Jeremiah,"  4,  6,  13 

,,  epistle  of,"  5, 17 

"  Job,"  4,  15,  19,  20,  54,  200,  229, 

231 
"Joel,"  14 
"  Jonah,"  14,  20,  262 
Joseph,  the  tribes  of,  132 
"  Joshua,"  4,  6,  67, 109 
Judaism,  2>cissi)ii 
"  Judges,"  4,  10,  24,  95,  113 
''Judith,"5,  17,  20,  262 
"  Just,  the,"  230 


K 

Kenites,  96, 101 

Kingdom  of  God,  the ;  germs  of  in 
Hosea 
I,  I,         ,,       becomes  uni- 

versal in  Isaiah 


Kingdom  of  God,  the ;  252, 259, 268- 

9,276 
"  Kings,"  4,  10, 13,  24,  82 


"Lamentations,"  5, 16 

Law,  the,  passim 

„    of  Holiness,"  10,  11,  204 
„      „  Yahweh,  "  found,"  170 
„    the,  a  summary  of  all  wisdom 

232 
,,      ,,    tables  of,  89 

Lepers,  72-3 

Levi,  tribe  of,  97,  125 

Levites,  125,  177 

Levitical  legislation,  12 

"  Leviticus,"  10 

Logos,  the,  257 

M 
"Malachi,"  14,254 
"  1  Maccabees,"  16,  251 
"  2  Maccabees,"  17,251 
Maccabees,  the,  5,  15,  276 
Maccabaean  rising,  17,  224,  260-1, 

269 
Magic,  xmssini 
Masseha,  115 
Messiah,  the,  257-60,  268-70,  271 

,,        a  crucified,  260 
Messianic  hope,  225,  260 

„         notion,  its  growth,  240 

King,  247,  254-6 
,,         Prince,  157 
Messianism,  passim 
"Micah,"  13 
Monolatry,  44 
Monotheism,  p)<^ssini 

,,  not    the    religion    of 

Moses,  100 
Morality,  53 

"  Moses,  Assumption  of,"  18,  251 
Mountain  of  God,  32 
Mom-ning,  215,  219 


Index  of  Subjects  287 


N 
Nahi,  27,  121,  129,  131-4,  139,  152, 

188 
Nabis,  uninily,  put  in  stocks,  153 
'•  Nahum,"  13 
Nazir,  121,  132,  133 
"  Nehemiah,"  5,  206 
New  Moon,  85-6 
"  Numbers,"  10,  62 

0 
"  Obadiah,"  14 

Oracle,  120, 127-9, 131, 133, 153, 172, 
181,  228 


Paganism,  47 

Pantheism,  101 

Paschal  Lamb,  86,  87 

Passover,  80,  86, 148 

"  Parables  of  Enoch,"  257 

Paralipomena,  5 

"  Pentateuch,"  4,  6, 12,  97,  107 

Pentecost,  86-7 

Persian  domination,  12, 15,  230 

Pharaohs,  the,  26 

Pharisees,  270-1,  273 

Piety,  personal,  225 

Polygamy,  licit,  216 

Polytheism,  44,  52-3,  56,  63 

„  in  the  Temple,  163 

Popular  songs,  6 

Priesthood,  the  Levitical ;  its  origin 
and  functions,  124-9 

,,         reorganized,  177 
"  Priestly  Code,  the,"  21,  24,  204-6 
Prophecies,  anonymous,  14 

„        ,  pseudonymous,  14 
Prophecy,  passim 
Prophetism,  _passi?n,  and  129-40 
Prophets,  their  habitual  inaccuracy, 
154-5 

,,       ,  writing  or  literary,  153 

„       ,  the  modernity  of,  19 


Prostitution,  Sacred,  117 
"  Proverbs,"  4, 15, 17,  232 
"Psalms,"  4, 15,  225-6,  230 
"  Psalms  of  Solomon,"  18,  258 
Purity  and  impurity,  27,  70-73 


R 

Rahab,  the  monster,  200 
Rechabites,  the,  102,  132, 138 
Religion,  passim 
Resurrection  of  the  dead,  227,  251, 

271 
Boe=  a  seer,  129 
"  Ruth,"  5,  16,  216 


S 
Sabbath,  11,  65,  83-5 

„        a  Canaanite  custom,  119 
Sabbatarianism,  growth  of,  207-8 
"  Sacerdotal  Code,"  11,  12,   14,  24, 

204-5,  213 
"  Sacerdotal  History,"  11, 12,  27 
Sacrifices,  65,  73-8,  said  passim 

,,        ,  human,  78-80 

,,        ,  of  Christ,  83 

,,        ,  domestic  and  not  sacer- 
dotal, 127, 176 
Sadducees,  218,  251,  271-3 
Samaritan  Schism,  216-19,  251 
"  Samuel,"  4,  10,  24 
Scribes  the,  inaugurated,  220,  276 
Seers,  129,  132 
Semites,  35,  43,  56,  63 
"  Septuagint,  the,"  5,  266 
Seraphim,  the,  223 
Serpent,  the  Brazen,  62 
Servant  of  Yahweh,  the,  247 
Shew  bread,  76 
SibyUine  Books,  18 
Snake  of  Eden,  the,  244 
Snake  God,  63 

"  Solomon,  Psalms  of,"  18,  254 
Sou  of  Man,  257 


288 


Index  of  Subjects 


"  Song  of  Songs,"  5,  15 
Spirit  worship,  44 
Superstition,  55 
Synagogue,  85,  262 


Tabernacles,  feast  of,  86-7,  207 

Tabu,  80,  84 

Tattooing,  of  prophets,  205 

Teraphini,  180-1 

Thutnmhnt  90, 129 

Titans,  26 

"  Tobit,"  5, 17,  20,  251 

Tophet,  165,  167-8, 180 

Torah,  the,  107,  120,  124,  128,  137, 

148,  153,  180, 187 
Totemism,  55,  62,  87 
Tribes,  the  twelve,  27 


U 

Unleavened  bread,  87-8, 148 
Urim,  90,  129 


W 

"  Wars    of    Yakweh,    the,"    106-7, 

112 
"  Wicked  "  the,  230 
"  Wisdom,"  5,  17 
Wisdom  personij&ed  and  Judaised, 

232,  265 
Witch  of  Endor,  228 


"  Zechariah,"  14 
"  Zephaniah,"  13 


UNWIN  BR0THEK8,  LIMITED,  THE  GBESHAM  PRESS,  WOKING  AND  liONDON. 


Date  Due 


4     W 


!  •.■:• 


F/i 


BS1196.L836 

The  religion  of  Israel ... 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00043  7311 


